Keep racing, There has been an error by the RC, but everything is still fair and it is not a material error.

When I do these sorts of things I quickly try to assess the redress scenario, and if no boats' score will be made worse, I simply prepare to apologise to the sailors for the mistake. Quite similar to the approach taken for the failure to make the starting sound signal.

Interesting question.  Did the race committee make an error in raising the X flag?  Is there any rule that prohibits the X-flag from being raised after the U flag?  and seem to be relevant. Note that does not apply when does. If it is considered an error by the Race Comittee has anyone's score been made materially worse through no fault of their own? If a competitor restarts under a U flag with no possibility of a restart I would have to say that the competitor holds some responsibility for any lost places.

I think in all situations I would allow the race to continue and in scenario #3 let the conpetitors decide if they wish to file for redress and let the Protest Committee decide if they can get past the no-fault-of-their own.

Scenario 1 - All boats keep racing - let it go.  No one's score has been made worse by the error.
Scenario 2 - Only boats that were over came back - No one's score made worse - keep racing.
Scenario 3 - Big trouble.  Boats that started correctly have had their scores made worse by the error (even though the jury may find they fail the "through not fault of their own" filter).  Abandon. (Abandon is more appropriate than General Recall - all OCS boats were identified and there was no error in the starting sequence.)
Scenario 4 - Up against a time limit - no change in any answer, just in Scenario 3, you won't get that race to count.
Scenario 5 - No change to answers. Sorry, they don't get their second discard (Scenario 3). 
Scenario 6 - No change to answers.  Sorry, they don't get their series (Scenario 3).

On any scenario that includes Scenario 3, if you let the race go, you are setting yourself up for a very long and painful redress hearing,  Better to abandon and own your mistake than to go through that process, although it is very tempting to let the race go in Scenario 6.

I'm mostly in line with Brent and Matt on these up to scenario 3.  However, the boats that restarted will almost certainly fail the 'no fault of their own' test when they answer the question 'Are you familiar with the wording of rule 30.3?'  Whatever their answer, they fail.  So, as a race officer, the fairest outcome would be to abandon.
Scenario 4, as above, the restarters will fail the 'no fault of their own' test.
Scenario 5 needs reference to the case book, that I haven't done yet.  If this is a big fleet, then the series score may be made worse by the error.  Does the affect on a series score outweigh the 'no fault' clause for one race if, say, a competitor now has to discard a 4th and a15th, where on previous results he or she may have been due to discard two 4th place scores?  And that impacts his or her place on the podium...  
Scenario 6, setting aside 30.3 for a moment, if there aren't enough races completed to constitute a series, in agreement with the OA, you hold a redress hearing for all the competitors and ask if they would be happy to change the NoR and/or SIs after the fact so that a series is contituted and prizes may be awarded for whatever the event is.  Otherwise, prizes can be awarded for the 'event' but no championship title, if such is involved.  But this is only my opinion and I welcome discussion from those who may have had experience of such situations.

This is not a rules question it is a race management question.

As an RO I personally would let the race continue and let the protest committee deal with any request for redress.

If I was a member of a protest committee that received a request for redress in Scenario 3 when the race had been allowed to continue I would argue for refusal of the request unless there was some other fact which made the boats that returned blameless.

If I was a boat that got a good start in any of Scenarios 3 through 6 and the race committee abandoned the race I would be seeking redress for the improper action of the race committee in doing so (in particular in Scenarios 4 through 6).

In Scenarios 4 through 6 in particular I consider it fairest to let the race continue - if you abandon the race than all boats' series scores will be affected, whereas if you let it continue there is a chance that a small number of boats' scores will be affected, in which case the protest committee can decide whether or not to give them redress.

If I was a boat that got a good start in any of Scenarios 3 through 6 and the race committee abandoned the race I would be seeking redress for the improper action of the race committee in doing so.

What would the improper action be?  "The RC may . . . abandon the race . . . for any other reason directly affecting the safety or fairness of the race.  In addition, the RC may . . . abandon the race because of an error in the starting procedure." (RRS 32.1)  The RC makes no error by abandoning.

Assuming they could argue a way into being granted redress, what would the redress be for a race that doesn't exist for anyone?

In Scenarios 4 through 6 in particular I consider it fairest to let the race continue - if you abandon the race than all boats' series scores will be affected, whereas if you let it continue there is a chance that a small number of boats' scores will be affected, in which case the protest committee can decide whether or not to give them redress.

I don't see it that way.  Until someone finishes, none of their scores have been affected because the race doesn't exist until the first boat finishes within the time limit.  By abandoning the race quickly, no one's score is affected.
 

I would allow the race to continue and appologise if any person was inconvenienced. The boat in breach of U has to be disqualified.
No redress for anyone as if U they should know there cannot be an "x"so there would always be fault.

just carry on.

Graham,

If I was a boat that got a good start in any of Scenarios 3 through 6 and the race committee abandoned the race I would be seeking redress for the improper action of the race committee in doing so (in particular in Scenarios 4 through 6).

Your comment above really had me thinking hard as I can't imagine what redress a boat could possibly receive which would be fair to all those racing, in a race which was abandoned just after the start, based on skipper's position that they had a "good start".  Have you (or anyone else here) actually seen that happen?  If so, I'd be very interested in the details.

This is a very interestimg question and I suspect we may see  divergence of opinion between those seeking to apply the letter of the law and those seeking to give fair racing to the majority of competitors.

Looking at the question of whether or not the flying of flag X was an improper action, I think it qualifies as that. Whilst I agree that rule 29.1 requires it and no rule specifically prohibits it, as it is a signal that might be made at the time of the start it is confusing to competitors and that alone qualifies it as improper.

In terms of the actions available to the RC, there are only two, either race on or abandon the race with flag N. First substitute would not be appropriate as that is for if there is an error in the starting procedure and here the error is in the recalling procedure - up to the start everything was fine.

In Scenarios 1 and 2 just let the race run and score the boat UFD. That is the score she should have got so no worsening of her position.

Scenario 3 I would abandon, why not? Everyone can have another go and you are guaranteed a fair race for all of the boats. I agree that the boat that was UFD has got away with it but the fairness for all the boats that returned out weighs this.

Scenario 4-6 this is much more tricky, The words of RRS 32.1(d) requires the RO to think about the fairness of the "compettiton" and not just the race as in scenario 3. The RO will have to make a judgement call on the lesser of evils as to whether to abandon or not based on his/her opion as to whether or not letting the race run on would resulting a fairer competition over all. That would lead to a number of factors being taken into account not all of which can be easily evaluted in the few minutes available to make a decision. A very difficult call but perhaps made easiler by the view that any boats that did return would fail the "through mo fault of their own" test in a request for redress and be recorded in their actual finishing positions.

Perhaps it would be helpful particularly in scenarios 4 and 5 to consider the effect of actions on the boat most affected. By that I mean a boat who is leading the series so if the race is abandoned by the RO then she wins the series but if it is raced and she gets a mid fleet result because she returned at the start. Is it fair that she wins the series because at least in part of her actions that led to the race being abandoned or is it fairer that she suffers the worse result which is due in part to her misjudgement of the start and mis understanding of flag U. This points towards the fact that racing on is the fairer of the two options.

In any event is this likely to result in a request for redress? The boats that have returned and restarted will be happy just to see that they have a result. On balance and taking all the above into consideration, I would say run them on in all scenarios.
 

Firstly, display of flag X for an individual recall is NOT necessarily improper under a Z, U, or Black Flag start if, at the starting signal, a boat is on the course side of the starting line but not in the triangle.  Rules 30.2, 30.3 or 30.4 do not apply if no boat is in the triangle, thus there is nothing to prevent rule 29.1 applying to boats that are OCS but not UFD.

In this case, the race committee decided that they should not have displayed flag X, thus, that the boat that they observed was in the triangle, and was UFD, not OCS.

The display of flag X was an improper action by the race committee, but in no scenario was any boat's score or place made any worse by that action.

Scenario 1  No boat responds.  The offending boat will be UFD no matter what.  Let the race run.
Scenario 2  The UFD boat returns.  She is already UFD, her score or place is not worsened.  Let the race run.
Scenario 3  This is no different from 'guilty conscience' boats that were not identified as OCS by the race committee returning on an Individual Recall signal under a P or I flag start.  Let the race run.
Scenarios 4, 5, and 6  As the race will not be disturbed, no change.

John,

Firstly, display of flag X for an individual recall is NOT necessarily improper under a Z, U, or Black Flag start if, at the starting signal, a boat is on the course side of the starting line but not in the triangle.  Rules 30.2, 30.3 or 30.4 do not apply if no boat is in the triangle, thus there is nothing to prevent rule 29.1 applying to boats that are OCS but not UFD.

Thinking through this, it would seem the only way that a boat could meet OCS but not UFD (given the 1 min boundry) is if they were approaching the line from outside the pin from a position of above the line or maybe swooping down at high speed to hook behind the CB.  Is it suggested or common practice for RC's to X-flag those boats?  I don't remember seeing that in my experience.

Rule 29.1 states that if rule 30.3 applies (U Flag Rule) then rule 29.1 does not. The only rule that requires a Flag X to be flown is rule 29.1. If that rule has been disapplied because rule 30.3 is in force then Flag X should not be flown even if a boat otherwise meets the conditions for flying it in rule 29.1 because that rule has disapplied itself.

I think any disagreement here revolves round what is meant by the word "applies" in rule 29.1. My interpreteation is that rule 30.3 applies any time the RO decides to use flag U. It applies to all boats regardless of their position in relation to the start line and like all rules they apply to boats even if they aren't breaking them. The alternative view here seems to be that rule 30.3 does not apply to boats unless they are actually breaking it. Even if a boat is not breaking it by sailing in the "triangle" in the minute before the start the rule still applies to her, it is just that she is not breaking it. It follows that rule 29.1 does not apply to any of the starters in these circumstances because rule 30.3 applies to all of them.

John Allan - Rules 30.2, 30.3 or 30.4 do not apply if no boat is in the triangle, thus there is nothing to prevent rule 29.1 applying to boats that are OCS but not UFD.

Rules 30.2, 30.3 and 30.4 apply as soon as the preparatory signal flag is displayed.  The first sentence of each of those rules starts, "If the [Z, U or Black] flag has been displayed, no part of the boat's hull, crew or equipment . . . . "  It is appropriate to fly the X-flag for OCS boats when the Z flag is used, but not when the U or Black flag is used (the last sentence of RRS 29.1).

The X flag has no meaning in a U flag start except for a boat that did not cross the line after the starting signal (or if both I and U flags were displayed).  X and/or the sound signal may be confusing to a boat that did not recognize the U flag or understand its meaning, but If U was displayed properly I would let the race continue under all scenarios.  If boat feels that it had been prejudiced by the display of X and/or the sound signal it can seek redress (but is unlikely to prevail, in my opinion).

I want to retract/revise my muddled comments above.  Per Rule 26, the I and U flag combination is not a valid signal so the X flag has no meaning in a start under Rule 30.3.  A boat that returns in response to a display of X either did not see U flag or did not understand its meaning.  I would let the race continue under all scenarios.