is this considered two incidents and the W would need to do exonerate themselves twice under rule 44.1.

1. headed-up and sailed across the starting line 'over-early' and then tacked to port (once clear of the RC) sailed to the starboard-side of the RC and done her turns, or
2. eased sails at #2, taken Red's stern, dropped below the other boats and done her turns.

Did Red file one protest form, or two?  If they filed both incidents on the same form (which I could easily see a competitor doing), how would the PC bifurcate into two incidents (which is to say, two separate protests)?

• that one of the incidents was not subject to valid protest, then declare the protest with respect to that incident invalid and close the hearing with respect to that incident, disregarding previous evidence only relevant to that incident, and stating no conclusions with respect to that incident, then continue the hearing with respect to the other incident;
• that both incidents were subject of valid protests and continue the hearing, eventually reaching conclusions with respect to both incidents;
• that further evidence was required to determine validity and reopen the hearing to ascertain that relevant evidence, then decide on validity and proceed as appropriate.

Two incidents between the same two boats, only seconds apart are clearly 'very closely connected'.  Case 49 tells us that these should be heard together, so there's no reason to be trying to hold separate hearings.

I agree, but I think there was another opinion that if they're separate incidents they should be heard separately.

That's quite contrary to Case 49 which is authoritative.

The additional, umpire initiated penalty is meant to take away an advantage gained by a boat that broke a rule, especially if that advantage was gained through a deliberate breach of a rule at a critical time e.g. breaking a rule to avoid being OCS, barging at the start and denying an inside boat room at the mark. It may also be given to a boat that commits a breach of sportsmanship, and in such a case, the umpires may initiate the penalty without any flag Y from a competitor. (rule C8.3 and MR CALL M2) 

That's quite contrary to Case 49 which is authoritative.

Again personally I agree, but I think it depends on how you assess "very closely connected". 

It's pretty clear that these are separate incidents since the second breach is not an inevitable consequence of the first. They involve the same boats and the same rule, but there's a 15-20 second interlude between where no rule is being broken. So what's the test for "very closely connected"?

If you have doubts about the application of Case 49, would you care to spell out the reasons why you think holding two separate hearings would be a good idea?

".. or is this considered two incidents and the W would need to do exonerate themselves twice under rule 44.1[?]"

RRS 44.2's “...  get[ting] well clear of other boats as soon after the incident as possible ...” 

John , yes, i know that:

"Section C rules do not apply at a starting mark surrounded by navigable water or at its anchor line from the time boats are approaching them to start until they have passed them.

But 30/35 sec is too much time  !!!!
...you can not keep sailing from te RC to the pin, you must sail DIRECTLY to the start line.


In this drawing Section "C" does not applies,  boats are approaching them to start.

1. Before the prep signal (not racing)
2. After the prep signal ( now Racing ) but before approaching the line to  Start 
3. Approaching the line to start

2) After the prep signal but before approaching the line to start, there is no proper side to the starting marks. A boat can spin around the RC or pin in any direction and it doesn’t matter (it’s an interesting question if that’s true with any other flag but P-flag in the last min... yea! a good topic for another thread!).  Therefore, one could argue that 18.1 states that 18 does not apply.

What I was trying to say (and probably failed) is you often don’t get two protests in this situation, you get but one. If the protestor has not provided the “linkage”, an agile PC may elect to do so. Becker is right, blue buys it either way, but I see a lot of PCs take a pass on application of RRS 2. Hard to miss when you look at these incidents together.

OP: "  ... is this considered two incidents and the W would need to do exonerate themselves twice under rule 44.1. "

If the second incident is the protested incident, then the previous logic applies and further there is the beginning of evidence the offending sailor may have intentionally ignored the first incident and could be subject to a Rule 2 violation for ignoring the first incident. Usually when this logic was pointed out, the offending sailor would ask to be retired.