It depends a lot on the context, but the best solution in this situation may well be that the race committee decides to abandon the race if the fleet has been becalmed for a significant amount of time.

However, assuming this hasn't happened, boats that break a rule should take a penalty, and if they do not and are protested, should be disqualified.

A analogical situation is where a start line is heavily biassed, causing a significant pile-up at one end. Good race management practice would likely be to postpone the start and re-set the line. But, if that does not happen and the start proceeds, the rules must be applied as they are written. That is the only 'fair' outcome.

When applying the rules, note the definition Room - 'the space a boats needs in the existing conditions...' and also the first sentence of RRS 14 'A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible'. These provisions may well be relevant. 

This is one of those occasions where it might be best to remember the purpose of the rules which are simply to provide a safe, orderly and fair way to play the game and to use sportsmanship as the guiding principle:  no harm no foul...

Ah …. R14 “if reasonably possible”, that’s a help.   The very old rule used to say “minor unavoidable contact”, which R 14 now seems to cover in different language.  

"no harm, no foul" is a breaking crest on a very steep wave. It is not a principle I see having a place in judging. 

This "rafting" at a mark does not happen instantaneously and is not just an act of Mother Nature or the wind gods. (yes, I acknowledge both these phrases may not be PC so I'm open to suggestions for better wording) The sailors' actions contribute to it. There are rules responses as noted above...RC action, appropriate application of RRS 14 to "protect" boats which have acted in accordance with RRS.

Sailors can't necessarily predict if or when the wind will shut off or drop to the point where their boats can't be controlled.

In this situation if none of the competitors felt moved to protest I don't see any reason why the RC or PC should.

If someone did protest I think you'd need to determine the facts and conclude whether it was reasonably possible for the boats involved to avoid contact in the existing conditions. If not, then no breach of rule 14 occurred. If the PC decides that contact was avoidable, then they'd need to decide if anyone was exonerated by rule 43.

Thanks, this is all good comment. 

I always picture this photo whenever considering these scenarios.

[img]https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2016/09/GOT-traffic-jam-MAIN.jpg[/img]

Odds are, no-one will protest, but if they do I can't see how you can not hold a hearing, and penalise those that have broken a rule that's not exonerated. 

Tim,

The rules don't generally care whether a sailor can predict anything or whether their boats can't be controlled.

They generally just look at what boats do.

A give way boat has to exercise as much foresight or 'prediction' as is necessary for her to comply with the rules.

I strongly agree with Greg.

I'd point out that while contact is good evidence about rules breaches, rule 14 is not the right way to start in analysing a raft-up or any other scenario.  You need to conclude (I would suggest in this order):

Rule 14 last sentence limits the amount of foresight a boat having right of way or an entitlement to room is required to apply.  There is no such limitation available to a boat required to keep clear or give room:  unless she is obstructed from manoeuvering by another boat or an obstruction, it may be taken that she could have reasonably avoided contact by not sailing into a position close to the other boat in the first place.