I don't follow that statement. Can you elaborate on it?

Also, I don't think X is necessarily being a poor sport. She is entitled to protest under rule 60.1(a), and actually expected to under the Basic Principle of Sportsmanship and the Rules. The circumstances regarding X's involvement are not described in this scenerio - only that she witnessed the incident. We have no evidence to suspect X's motives.

For example, suppose that X was directly behind S, close enough to view the encounter but too far to hear the hails. X clearly sees S alter course and naturally assumes it was to avoid P. X honestly believes that P broke rule 10 and exercises her right to protest. This is not in iteslf a bad thing. It could actually be a good thing.

What if this were in a closely contested regatta, where X and P were in prize contention. If I'm X and I see P break a rule, I'm going to protest.

What if X knows that P has a knowledgable and crafty skipper, but beleives that S is a relative novice? X might suspect that S is reticent to protest, or that P cowed S into believing she was at fault? Sportsmanship might demand a protest here.

But, let's stick with the usual circumstance - S and P think they're both fine, but X thinks a rule was broken. It goes to a hearing where all three boats tell their stories, everybody realizes that the crossing was amicable, and the three skippers go away satisfied. That's much better than X telling everybody on shore (or at the bar) that he saw P "cheating" on the racecourse.

Regards,
Eric