Let's first sort out what rule(s) apply. Before the boats reach the zone, the windward boat (w) is clear ahead. Rule 12 applies at that time. When they become overlapped, Rule 12 is replaced by Rule 11 and Rule 15 begins to apply. Also, when the leeward boat (L) becomes overlapped (from clear astern within two hull-lengths), Rule 17 applies to her. After the boats pass head-to-wind and until they are on a close-hauled course, Rule 13 applies. When she is changing course, rule 16.1 applies to L. Rule 14 applies to both boats. Also, and most importantly, Rule 18.2(b) applies from the moment the first boat enters the zone until W passes head-to-wind. After W passes head-to-wind, Rule 18.2(a) applies.

Now, we'll apply the obligations. When she is clear astern, L is obligated to keep clear of W (12). Upon becoming overlapped, W must keep clear of L (11). L must initially give W room to keep clear (15). L may not sail above her proper course (17). After both boats pass head-to-wind, until they reach a close-hauled course, W must keep clear of L (13). While she changes course, L must give W room to keep clear (16.1). Both boats must, if reasonably possible, avoid contact (14). While in the zone, L must give W mark-room (18.2(a)(b)).

Were any rules broken? Well, it's axiomatic that if two boats make contact, some rule must be broken, but let's look to see if the boats met all their obligations above. When astern, L kept clear of W. When overlapped to windward, W kept clear of L. L initially gave W room to keep clear. Assuming that L was able to fetch the mark when she tacked, L did not sail above her proper course. After passing head-to-wind, but before reaching a close-hauled course, L and W made contact. Therefore, I conclude that W did not keep clear of L. While changing course, L did not give W room to keep clear (assuming W's tack was seamanlike). W was not reasonably able to avoid contact (again, assuming her tack was seamanlike). L, however, was reasonably able to avoid contact, but she did not. Assuming that W was always sailing "to the mark" (not past it), then L did not give W mark-room.

So, (with the above assumptions) W breaks Rule 13. L breaks Rules 14, 16.1 and 18.2(a). Now we move on to exoneration. Assuming that W was "sailing within the mark-room to which she is entitled", Rule 21(a) exonerates her for breaking Rule 13 (Rule 64.1(a) could as well). Assuming that there was no injury nor damage, Rule 14(b) exonerates L for breaking Rule 14. L does not, however, receive any exoneration for her infractions of Rules 16.1 nor 18.2(a).

Note that I've made a few assumptions. If the facts were different, then the outcome could be as well.

The important point is that I never mentioned a boat's "rights" at all in the analysis. It was all about the boats' obligations under the rules, and whether or not each boat met her obligations.

I hope that helps,
Eric