Lol, this is why I usually refrain from commenting on actual incidents. Invariably, people who were present chime in with differing (usually contradictory) accounts of what actually happened. Without an actual protest hearing, with its "finding of fact", nobody can give a true appraisal of the rules.

This does serve, however, to illustrate the problem with photographic evidence. When looking at the video, I did not see the contact you mention - the perspective makes it hard to see.

Hypothetically speaking, if a boat on starboard tack gybes to leeward of a port tack boat, and immediately rounds up and makes contact, then the gybing boat would probably be found to have broken rule 16.1 (by changing course without giving the other boat room to keep clear). Also, if an inside windward boat contacts an outside leeward boat during a mark rounding, then the windward boat breaks rule 11 (by not keeping clear), and probably rule 14 as well.

Who would be penalized depends entirely on whether the starboard tack boat was inside or outside the zone when she gybed. If she was in the zone, then the gybing boat would be exonerated for breaking rules 16 and 11 under rule 21(a), and for breaking rule 14 (provided there was no damage nor injury) under rule 14(b).

If the starboard tack boat was outside the zone when she gybed, then she receives no exoneration. Instead, the other boat would be exonerated for breaking rule 11 (first contact) under rule 64.1(a). The other boat would likely either not break rule 14, or would be exonerated under rule 14(b).

Either way (still speaking hypothetically) one penalty turn would not be sufficient. There were two separate incidents of contact, and each would require its own penalty. See US Sailing Appeal 65, which states "the test of whether two occurrences were one or two incidents is whether the second occurrence was the inevitable result of the first". As (hypothetically) described, the second contact was not "the inevitable result" of the first.

I hope that helps,
Eric