Aldo, I feel your dissatisfaction with the result, but stepping through each of the possible avenues for redress in 62.1 (a)-(d) and asking “does this situation satisfy this condition?”, the answer to each is “no”.  

Being slowed or disadvantaged by Part 2 rule breach alone (with no serious damage/injury) does not entitle one to redress, regardless how the encounter effects a boat.

It would be a different question if in forcing the boat BFD the other boat was found to have broken Rule 2/69.  They still can’t race in the restart, but then at least they’d have a hook into a redress condition in 62.1(d).  

Angelo, thanks for your comment, I understand your point about disadvantages of Part 2 breach alone, but still rule 43.2 calls for "shall not be penalized". And beside, it looks a shame.

Aldo, I agree it is a bit of a Catch-22 isn't it? (not sure if "Catch-22" is a term understood in Italy).

If a solution was desired by WS, I think the place to change would be RRS 36.  One might add "unless exonerated" at appropriate places.

The trick is with the new ".. is exonerated .. " in the new RRS 43.1(a).  The RRS is now clear that exoneration happens in real-time at the moment of the rules breach.

The risk of changing RRS 36 to accommodate this is that BFD boats would have nothing to loose by protesting the nearest boat to them each time they are BFD ... and quite a bit to possibly gain.  Maybe that is the issue .. the fear that it would clog the protest-room with trivial/made-up protests as they grasp for straws.

36. RACES RESTARTED OR RESAILED (does this fix it?)

   

If a race is restarted or re-sailed, a breach of a rule in the original race, or in any previous restart or re-sail of that race shall not

Yap, revised rule 36 as you wrote it, would be best, and much clearer
Still, with present rules, that "shall not be penalized" in 43.2 does not fit, imho, with that answer 3.
Also because is not actually a catch 22. Because, beside not being his fault to break 30.4, his future is not set yet, It remain in the hands of the RC. If there is no General Recall, she'll get the score as per finish position, if RC draw the General Recall, she get a DNS. Too much difference of treatment,  in the hand of a third party.

Aldo .. I think you've offered an interesting perspective.  Maybe you should write-up a rule-change submission and send it in to WS with your analysis.  I think you make some good points.

Ang

Thanks Angelo, a pleasure hearing your last comment. 

Angelo, after a sleepless night brainstorming (well, not quite) I get another point of view:
The prohibition to start is inside rule 30.4
If the boat is cleared (by 43.2) for breaking rule 30.4, it means (it should mean) that she's also cleared of  the prohibition to start. Why cleared only for half a rule? If cleared, cleared.
At that point, that boat has her future in her hands: 
if race continued, and CdP clear her from breaking 30.4, she'll get her score as per final position. If not, BFD
If race resailed,  and CdP clear her from breaking 30.4, she'll get her score as per final position. If not, DNE. Up o her to decide wether to start, and take the risk of a DNE, or take a nap, and be happy with the BFD.
That sound to me more fair. And by the rules.

Aldo, I think you are correct, the exoneration language would need to be in RRS 30.4 and RRS 36.

30.4. Black Flag Rule (with exoneration allowance)

   

If a black flag has been displayed, no part of a boat’s hull shall be in the triangle formed by the ends of the starting line and the first mark during the last minute before her starting signal. If a boat breaks this rule and is identified, she shall be disqualified without a hearing, even if the race is restarted or resailed, but not if it is postponed or abandoned before the starting signal. If a general recall is signaled or the race is abandoned after the starting signal, the race committee shall display her sail number before the next warning signal for that race, and if the race is restarted or resailed and she is not exonerated under RRS 43.1(a) for breaking this rule, she shall not sail in it. If she does so, her disqualification shall not be excluded in calculating her series score.

VERY INTERESTING !!!!!
THANKS ALDO & ANGELO !!!

In the first start, after you are BFD,
you must return to the pre-start area to comply with the definition of START and rule 28....in this case we´ll have more possibilities asking a redress.

Hi Angelo.
sorry, i've been busy this days.
Thanks for your intrest in the matter.
Amyway, my point is that what i say is already matching with present wording of the RRS. Rule 30.4 says clearly that the prohibiton to start refers only to the boat that broke 30.4. Your wording will make it much clearer, though.
If the boat did not break it, she have all the right to start. Even if the RC shows her number. 
And that also goes against Case 140, answer 2, when it states " , the penultimate sentence of rule 30.4 prohibited A from sailing in the restarted race".  Starting with the number exposed should not be, per se, a break of rule 30.4, if rule 30.4 has not been broken in the first place. 
Resuming: Boat that DID NOT broke rule 30.4: nothing of that rule apply to her:  the BFD if race started, neither the prohibiton to start, because that prohibition is subject to having broken the rule. 
And that is what is actualy written in that rule.
Exoneration: same effect as not having broken the rule, so same as above.

Aldo re: " Exoneration: same effect as not having broken the rule, so same as above."

Exoneration for breaking a rule is not the same as not breaking the rule in the first place.

Yes, the point of exoneration is to remove the necessity of a penalty, as required when a rule is broken .. BUT .. the rule is still broken.

Now that we've spent some time with it going back and forth, I believe you were correct in your original post.

You see, the problem is in how rule 30.4 is worded.  

As Case 140 points out, exoneration can fix the DSQ penalty if the boat:

BUT ... 

The DNE penalty is only reliant on the on-the-water call.  In this circumstances, the RC  .. 

The problem is that #2 and #3 above can't be "fixed" retroactively .. and the RC acts properly under the rules by doing #2 and #3 (and #1).  The RC does not have the ability on the water to acknowledge this boat's exoneration for being in the triangle.  Only a PC can come to that determination and only on the basis of a valid protest.

When the boat restarts after she is properly ID'd and her # posted, she breaks the plain language at the end of RRS 30.4.  

Thus, by adding the little text I suggested above, she does not break the last part of 30.4 because she was exonerated at the time and the last sentence doesn't apply to her.

.... now all that said .. maybe this is an argument that holds water.

This is based on reading RRS 30.4 as first applying a disqualification and then later changing that DSQ to one that can not be excluded (DSQ -> DNE).

No DSQ? .. then nothing to modify to DNE.

This would take a rework of Case 140 instead of changes to RRS 30.4 and 36.