Agreed Angelo. The circular argument and reference back to all of 60, could introduce convoluted interpretations, and achieves nothing better than your proposed specific reference.

"4. that a boat had broken a rule"
There is no requirement to identify which rule. And the PC is free to modify the allegation, if a different rule is found to apply.
The PC is free to interpret a submission of parts 1,2, 3, and a story as an allegation of rule infraction.
 

I'd always figured that the protestor had to cite a rule that they considered had been broken, and the reason was to force the protestor to actually consider what the rule book says about the incident. If a narrative is allowed isn't one in the situation where a vexatious protester could simply deliver narratives hoping there was a rule broken in there somewhere? 

Angelo, would your concern be somewhat abated if the first occurrence of the word protest were not italicised? I suppose we have the almost philosophical question as to whether an invalid protest is yet a protest? 

I can understand the argument for identifying a specific rule being transgressed. It would be unacceptable to be called in front of a magistrate where the prosecution accuses the defendant of just “breaking the law.” As stated by others, it could be a bit of a fishing expedition otherwise… 

However, I think the current rules surrounding the validity of a protest are more administrative in nature. They simply determine the parties and make the protest relevant to the Rules. For example, you don’t protect a boat if you think their rainbow spinnaker is offensive. 

Agreed that in the definition of “Rule” in para (b), we should not use the word “Rule” italicised or otherwise as a circular definition in sloppy at best.  

Jim my concerns are stated in the reasons, but in general putting the def: protest in there 

I think the intent was to make things clearer in this quad, which is cleanly stated in 60.3(a).  By putting def: protest in there as they did, that muddies 60.3(a)'s clarity IMO. 

I think the main issue is that the Definition requires there to be an allegation that a boat has broken a rule, whereas new rule 60.3 just requires to identify the protestor, protestee & the incident, with no requirement to provide the allegation. As judges we are being left with a situation where, because a protest is delivered complying with 60.3, we have to assume that this automatically implies there is an allegation. As we are constantly told in training that we have to apply the rules as they are stated, having to imply something goes contrary to that.

Robin, yea ... apart from the basic confusion from referring to itself, IMO this introduces an ambiguity of what is meant by alleging that a rule is broken and how clear/meaningful does it have to be in the protest filing to be valid.  We haven't required that a protest contain the alleged rule .. to get past validity and into a hearing (maybe I've been too lenient).

For me, I'm fine with ID'ing the parties and the incident and then figuring the rest out in a hearing.  If there is no rule broken because no rule actually exists which could apply, then we normally "dismiss" the protest after a hearing after concluding that the  actions of the boat does not break a rule ... not invalidate it prior to a hearing. 

The self referencing issue is just a sentence-structure logic thing for me.  Maybe it's just my engineering-mind's gears that get jammed each time I read it .. and it reads fine for others. 

Angelo, could one not argue that as 60.4 repeatedly talks about invalid protests, it follows that an invalid protest is a real thing? I submit the rules say that there are valid and invalid protests, but both are yet protests. That does leave a grey area between an invalid protest and something that is not a protest at all, but I suggest the key difference is that the race office need not bring something that isn't a protest at all before the PC (unless its an allegation of misconduct I suppose), and so I'm not sure that's a desperately critical distinction. I'm not sure we have genuine recursion in the rule. Maybe I'm wrong, but I tend to think of the definitions as macros(in the pre microsoft sense), in which one can replace the word with the text of the definition and it makes sense. I think that's true for all of RRS60: I certainly don't see the sort of endless loop that constitutes a problem in my mind.

Robin, I really don't follow your argument. The first and foremost part of the definition is that its an allegation. I don't see why the word allegation needs to be repeated in the text of 60.3. I do think, though, the definition should be clearer as to whether the allegation is that an unspecified rule has been broken, or a specified one. There's an argument, I suppose, that if the rule broken is not specified its hardly an allegation at all, but I agree its unsatisfactory. It would be better, to my mind, if the rule still specifically required the protestor to specify a rule. Otherwise, as Rene says, we are at risk of permitting fishing expeditions, which seems undesirable and would make for very long nights for the Olympic Jury! 

Jim, I've laid out my POV as best I can concluding with my 2 bullets at the bottom of my last post above.   

Both incidents of "protest" are italicized in that sentence.

PS: Terminology: A term used in the sense stated in the Definitions is printed in italics.