Situation
Conditions are very light. Before the starting procedures, the race committee announces on VHF that the race will be shortened. The race committee signal vessel then displays flag S.
The sailing instructions neither describe a procedure for shortening the course, nor a procedurefor oral changes to the sailing instructions. The course described in the sailing instructions is a 2-lap windward/leeward course with a gate as the leeward mark. The starting/finishing line is just to leeward of the gate.

When the boats are approaching the gate after the first lap, flag S is clearly visible on the race committee signal vessel, in position just to leeward of the gate.
The first two boats sail between the two gate marks. One minute later the race committee abandons the race. The two boats that sailed through the gate lodge a request for redress, stating that they finished according to the definition Finish, and that the race committee should not have abandoned the race without a valid reason after some boats had finished.

Assume there is neither evidence available about whether flag S had been correctly displayed, including sound signals, when the boats were approaching the gate - nor whether the flag had been left on display since before the start.

Question 1
Should the boats have understood that the signals (VHF and flag) about shortening the course given at the start did not have any meaning under the rules, and would the boats therefore then be, at least partially, at fault for not knowing or understanding the rules?

Answer 1
According to rule 32.2, the signals to shorten the course shall be made before the first boat crosses the finishing line. Announcing by VHF at the start that the course is going to be shortened, or displaying S flag at the start, does not have any meaning under rule 32.2. The boats should therefore disregard such signals. If competitors do not know the rules and make an error, they will be, at least partly, at fault, so they will not pass the 'through no fault of her own' test in rule 62.1, even if they are misled by an improper action of the race committee.

Question 2
In a request for redress, would it make any difference whether the boats understood the race committee's intentions, although they did not have any evidence about whether the procedures in rule 32 had been followed or not?

Answer 2
No

Question 3
Would the boats actions after sailing through the gate make any difference, and if so, how would the following actions affect the decision in a request for redress?
 (a) After passing the gate marks, the boats continued toward the 'finishing line'?
 (b) After rounding the gate, the boats continued sailing towards Mark 1?
 (c) After passing between the gate marks, the boats stopped racing?

Answer 3
When the first two boats arrive to the gate, there is a race committee boat displaying flag S near the gate, as described in rule 32.2(c). At that point, the race committee visual signal is correct and the boats should finish the race by crossing between the gate marks. What they do after finishing, does not affect any later protest committee decision. Rule 32.1 requires two sound signals when flag S is displayed. Displaying the flag and making the sound signals when the boats are too far away to hear the sound signals is clearly not best practice, however, it is not an error by the race committee as long as the visual and sound signals are both made. Because the first two boats had sailed the course and finished within the time limit, the race committee shall not abandon the race without considering the consequences for all boats in the race, see rule 32.1. When hearing a request for redress, the protest committee must find facts to conclude whether or not the race committee acted properly when abandoning the race. The decision to abandon a race lies solely with the race committee, but such decision must be based on one of the reasons stated in rule 32.1. Provided the race committee acts impartially and in good faith, and considers the consequences for all boats in the race or series when deciding to abandon a race, that action cannot be considered improper, and therefore it will not constitute grounds to grant redress. However, if the protest committee concludes otherwise, it should consider granting redress.