Ang, I don't think  the kind of game (1v1 or 1 v many) makes much difference to John's proposal. 

The boat who barges in at the start is not going to voluntarily take a penalty because she v realises that she gained an advantage over the 4th boat down the line. 

She either doesn't care or doesn't know. 

Third party protests are easy to write back into the rules on the 'beyond hailing distance' exception. Collusion is never permitted and would be dealt with under rule 2.  That could be brought by a 3rd party.  So this is not an issue to me. 

Look, I see the mechanical results of John's proposal quite simply.

1. Increase rule enforcement side of the game..
 2. Reduce grey area cases where the subjectivity of sportsmanship is the 'controlling' factor. 

If these are the aims then mechanically John's proposal works. 

The pertinent question is twofold.

1. Are those actually problems which need fixing?

2. What are the detriment caused by this fix? Do they outweigh the gain? 

Existing Problems

JohnQirk touches on some existing problems. How to make the whole system more fluid for reduced resource OAs. (I think he needs to be careful here though to avoid mixing issues. I wouldn't go ahead trying this out at his style of event. ) 

I find this aspect particularly interesting and I have recently dabbled with a proposal to hold validity before the main hearing for exactly this reason.  (One day I may even raise that in this forum!) 

Detrimental Effects

Some detrimental side effects are imagined and some are real. Of those which are real, most may be easily dealt with.

There has been an outpouring of shock with John's suggestion. Perhaps the thread title and opening post added to that. However, I'm not sure that it is all warranted.  I think there is some 'shooting from the hip'. To be expected, but not always constructive.

I think overall I don't yet see a problem which warrants a fix.

----

As far as I know .. there isn't anything like a fleet-cricket match where multiple teams are playing against each other at the same time.

French Cricket perhaps? He he! 

Thomas ..
  Both Case 77 and Case 91 when taken together imply your answer I think.   Both pertain to the obligations of a keep clear boat when  the equipment of the ROW boat is out of its normal position. 

A boom swinging from the starboard to port side is a boom operating in its normal operating positions.   A KC boat sailing DDW so close along side a ROW boat that if the ROW boat flops her boom over, without ROW changing course, that the boom hits part of the KC boat .. the KC boat has not kept clear IMO.  

In other words, a ROW boat that has to prevent their boom from moving fully to the port side to avoid contact with a KC boat has executed "an avoiding action" IMO.  

I think this is affirmed in the negative when you read the cases I linked to above.  In those cases they discuss the obligations of a KC boat when equipment is or moves out of its normal location.  

IMO, unless there is a case that says otherwise, there should be nothing unexpected about a boat sailing DDW on port-tack flopping her main over such that she is sailing on starboard-tack. A KC should be keeping enough space between them to allow that.

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?