Stefan, I don't see any 'special case'.

RRS 42.1 provides

Except when permitted in rule 42.3 or 45, a boat shall compete by using only the wind and water to increase, maintain or decrease her speed.

RRS 45 provides

[A boat] may anchor or the crew may stand on the bottom.

and (emphasis added)

Her crew may adjust the trim of sails and hull, and perform other acts of seamanship, but shall not otherwise move their bodies to propel the boat.

If the action of the crew standing on the bottom propels the boat, the boat breaks RRS 42.1, but not otherwise.

If Appendix P is in force, we should apply the usual requirements that there should be two judges observing and agreeing that RRS 42 is broken, then a penalty may be given.

If Appendis PO is not in force, If the protest committee hears evidence that establishes on the balance of probabilities that the crew  standing on the bottom propelled the boat the protest committee should conclude that the boat broke RRS 42.1 and penalise the boat.

Niko: I like your "the RC should always work to have an appropriate level of management commensurate with the competition level/importance" comment.

There is one event that may partner and I run every year ... the Warneet Around French Island race. While Monica runs the briefing giving numerous examples of the flags used during the start sequence there is usually an America's Cup skipper sitting quietly and respectfully at the back of the room with his family or mates. At the other end of the spectrum we have some who have NEVER raced before or perhaps doing their second race since last year.

During this race I tend to be very chatty on the radio to be sure that even those with the least experience have a great day on the water.

One boat in his first year actually missed the starting line, but we considered him a starter. The next year his missed the finishing line but we gave him a finish regardless. He was so pleased that he got the start right the second year ;-)

That said, it is quite a different matter if I am running a one-design race.

I fully endorse John Standley's summary.
And I add this:
Neither boat was required to act to avoid contact until it became clear that the other was not keeping clear.
There was no action that W could have taken in time before L's contact.
And L undoubtedly began trimming her main back in before contact occurred as fast as possible.
Hence, neither boat violated RRS 14.

Jim Champ Reply to: 22039 - John Quirk: furthermore, in CASE 50, in the first sentence, it actually uses the term "genuine and reasonable apprehension" (this of course a standard used by courts with applications for an arrest in connection with non-bailable offences), and in the second sentence 'reasonable doubt' (again, a well-tested legal / court term). Quite some complexity for a competitor and PC to become acquainted with :).

And I appreciate it.

I never called you a blockhead.