Firstly I think the technical answer to Mark's question is that in case 79 the race was recalled under rule 29.1 which requires the RC to promptly display flag X. as they did not this was an improper action and formed the basis of a request for redress. In case 140 the races were started under rules 30.3 or 30.4. Rule 29.1 states that when either of these rules apply then rule 29.1 doesn't. As rule 29.1 doesn't apply there is no requirement to display flag X so the failure by the RC to display it is not an improper action so there is no basis for redress - but see my later remarks.

I need to get something off my chest on case 140 - at the risk of being struck down by a lightening bolt I think the reasoning in this case is at fault and the conclusions therefore are in error. I fully appreciate that as WS cases these are binding and I will apply the interpretations as written (and as I am require to by rule 84) but that does not stop me having personal doubts as to the accuracy of the decision.

My issue is with the decision that if a boat is compelled to break either rule 30.3 or 30.4 by another boat breaking a rule then she may be exonerated under rule 64.1(a). This means that if she does not break rule 28 or corrects an error under that rule then her result should stand - I think this is a wrong reading of the rules.

Rule 64.1 starts by making it clear that it is dealing with a PC that decides that a boat has broken a rule and then goes on to say that the PC must apply the approproiate penalty. The word "However" before point (a) makes it clear that the exceptions set out in a-c that follow apply to the situation described in the first part of the rule ie a PC penalising a boat. When a boat is scored BFD or UFD it is not being penalised by a PC but scored by a RC based on it's own observations. It follows that exoneration for such a score cannot be given under 64.1(a) as the preconditions set out in the first paragraph of 64.1 have not been met.

I think this is confirmed by the points that Mark makes in his post. Rules 29.1, 30.3 and 30.4 when read together make it clear that no individual recall should be signaled when rules 30.3 and 30.4 apply. The obvious reason for this is because there is no way back for boats so penalised and to try and exonerate under 64.1(a) flys in the face of this. In a nutshel the decision in the case contradicts the wording of the rules.

Thanks, I feel better for that.

I fully appreciate that World Sailing cases and calls are authoritative interpretations and explanations of the rules. and we need to follow them,
 
Redress has three things that must occur for a protest committee to consider redress; (1) a boat’s score or place in a race or series has been or may be made significantly worse, (2) through no fault of her own, (3) by one of four things (a) an improper action or omission of the race committee … (b) injury or physical damage … (c) giving help … or (d) an action of a boat, or a member of her crew, that resulted in a penalty under rule 2 or a penalty or warning under rule 69.2(h).
 
Q&A 2017-005
The race is started under rule 30.3, U Flag Rule, or 30.4, Black Flag Rule. Twenty seconds before the starting signal there is an incident between boats A and B. The race committee identifies part of A on the course side. A does not return to the pre-start side of the starting line, but continues sailing the course and finishes. The race committee scores her UFD or BFD, as appropriate.

Boat A does not return to the pre-start side of the starting line, start correctly, sail the course and finish, so is not entitled to redress as nothing prevented her from complying with rule 28.1 and therefore she did not fulfill the ‘through no fault of her own’ condition in rule 62.1. Her scoring would be DNS, as in Answer 1 of WS Case 140.
 
CASE 79
When a boat has no reason to know that she crossed the starting line early and the race committee fails to promptly signal ‘Individual recall’ and scores her OCS, this is an error that significantly worsens the boat’s score through no fault of her own, and therefore entitles her to redress.
 
A boat that has no reason to believe that she was on the course side of the line at her starting signal has the right to assume that she started correctly unless properly signaled to the contrary. As Answer 3 indicates, a boat can be significantly disadvantaged by a delay by the race committee in making the recall signal. That error is entirely the race committee’s fault, and not that of the disadvantaged boat. (See Case 31 for a discussion of appropriate redress in a similar situation.)
 
QUESTION
If in both Q&A 2017-005 and CASE 79 the boat may have no reason to believe that she was on the course side of the line at her starting signal or in the triangle formed by the ends of the starting line and the first mark during the last minute before her starting signal. Therefore wouldn't they both be entitled to redress?
 
An incident occurs where Boat A is approaching to start and is forced over the line by Boat B. During the protest it is determined that Boat B broke rule 2. Therefore Boat A may be entitled to redress under 62.1(d). In CASE 79 boat A gets redress under 62.1(a), because of the RC mistake, not under 62.1(d). However, in Q&A 2017-005 boat A does not get redress under 62.1(d), Boat B's rule 2 breach. How does Boat A meet through no fault of her own in Case 79, but not in Q&A 2017-005? Is she somehow supposed to know that she was forced over the line?