Interesting question.

a. Technically Blue is racing from Blue Fleet preparatory signal. So she was not racing during Yellow starting procedure, but will be racing later, when blue prep is displayed. See definition of racing. "Her" preparatory...
b. Well she probably broke 28 because she failed to start. Eventually she may broke 24.1 if any yellow boat has to change course or react because of blue.
c. Yes. When she fails to start, she will break Rule 28. Any breach to 24.1 can also be penalized even when not racing. See preamble of part 2. After blue prep signal she is racing, then yes again if she breaks any rule.
d. Yes provided requirements of 62.1b are met.
e. See answaer c. Blue penalties are not linked to redress.

I think that you want to look at when the rules of part 2 apply and decide if they do.

Part 2 
WHEN BOATS MEET
The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing. However, a boat not racing shall not be penalized for breaking one of these rules, except rule 14 when the incident resulted in injury or serious damage, or rule 24.1.

Based on the damage question I would guess that rule 14 may come into play.  There is no rule that I'm aware of that requires a boat to be penalized before redress is granted so Boat A can get redress even if boat B cannot be penalised for breaking a rule of part 2.  It is harder to find a situation where 14 would not also be broken but I have seen strange results.

Hope this helps


 

1. Blue is not racing.  However by virtue of the preamble to Part 2 the rules of that part apply to her, but, as the preamble provides, she cannot be penalised for a breach except under rule 14 when the injury results in injury or serious damage, or under rule 24.
2. Clearly from the context of the question – ‘blue fouls yellow’ – blue broke a rule.  She also broke rules 14 and 24.  So far as 14 is concerned the damage affected yellow’s score so Case 110 applies implying that the damage was serious.
3. Yes, under rule 24 and possibly under rule 14.  Failing to start is not a breach of a rule.  It merely gives the race committee power to score her DNS.
4. Yes, if the PC is satisfied that rule 62.1 (b) applies, and it would seem to do so.  Of course yellow has to satisfy the protest that the incident and damage was ‘through no fault of her own.’
5. Yes under rules 14 and 24.

I will take a minority position it seems.  Yes, Blue's division started later, but when Blue chose, consciously or erroneously, to start with the earlier division it became 'her' race, 'her' start, and 'her' preparatory signal.  Blue was racing.  Sail Canada Appeal 102 (not binding outside Canada of course) addresses  a Rule 69 situation where a competitor consciously and maliciously starts in the wrong fleet.  She was found to have been racing, and the rules of part 2 applied to her.  Answers to parts (b) et seq. follow naturally.

To throw a red herring into the works, should the RC signal an individual recall for Blue at her division start or simply score her DNC (or DNS?) in blue division.  The first option would seem safer.

I think the questions have been well covered with the exception of whether or not blue was racing for the reasons explored by Warren Nethercote in his post. In a practical sense it would make no difference in that blue would be disqualified under the relevant right of way rule and rule 14 rather than rules 24 and 14 but it is an interesting point. I think the situation is similar to (but certainly not governed by) WS Case 126 which deals with which leg of a course the boat is on. The case established the principle that you should look at what a boat is doing and not what she should be doing and so I come down about 60:40 in favour of Warren's view.

On the subject of signaling a recall, this was covered at length in a thread I posted a few weeks ago dealing with the situation where a boat was obviously and clearly over the line and not actually taking part in the start. The overwhelming view was that a recall should not be signaled as this may confuse and adversly affect boats making a legitimate start.

Two minor comments:

A. Rule states that a boat "shall" start, . . . not fulfilling that obligation is a breach of rule 28.1, not different that missing a mark. The fact that the RC can score her according to A5 without a hearing, doesn't change the fact that the boat broke rule 28.1.

B. I don't think Warren statement is consistent. If we admit that "... when Blue chose, consciously or erroneously, to start with the earlier division it became 'her' race, 'her' start, and 'her' preparatory signal." that would mean, that blue started and finished properly, and therefore she should be scored in the yellow fleet. This would mean that the RC does not assign the fleets, and boats can chose the group they belong. In order to make clearer why I think it is inconsistent, instead of thinking about different divissions, try to think about completely different classes. E.g. optimist and lasers. What happends if a Laser, consciously or erroneously starts with the optimists. It is clear that this is not her race, not her start, nor her preparatory signal. And it is clear that the RC should not fly an X flag if only the laser is on the course side. What about if blue fleet was a race ahead in the series. When the boat "started", what race was she sailing?

Definition of refers to the boat preparatory signal, and according to rule 26 her preparatory signal shall be preceeded by her warning signal (blue fleet one). Assuming that yellows preparatory signal was her preparatory signal will conflict with rule 26 and definition of racing.

While there is no doubt that Blue broke a rule, the question is how is Yellow going to get redress.

Until there is a hearing there is going to be no redress. The hearing will have to decide that blue broke a rule before it can give redress under 62.1(b) So to address Brent's point, there is a practical requirement that a boat be penalised before redress can be given (even if the penalty is discretionary and small). The problem is that the request for redress has to be made before the expiry of the protest time limit, as it is based on an incident in the racing area. 

Many sailors seem to expect the race committee to "look after" them in these situations and don't think it very fair when they are told that they are out of time or that their failure to protest means that they fail the "through no fault of their own" test in 62.1.

The more common situation is an Optimist that picks up the wrong ribbon .... everyone, whether sailor or official treats her as racing until the scorer picks up the problem.  If it looks like a duck .... Of course the scorer then 'fixes' matters administratively by scoring her as DNC (or DNS) in her 'proper' flight, but had there been a Part 2 protest involving her, would the you not expect the PC to treat her as racing, as did other competitors?

For the record, Sail Canada Appeal 102 deals with a disgruntled J27 sailor who wanted to play with Stars that had previously been in her PHRF start but now had enough boats for a one design  start.  He argued that ColRegs applied, unsuccessfully, untill he slid down the Rule 69 slope.

Perhaps I suffer from too much pragmatism.  :-)

My last comments.

In order to get redress because of damage, the other boat does not need to be penalized. Rule 62.1b only requires a breach of a rule. A penalty is only required in rule 62.1d. It is a subtle difference between both rules.

The fact that the boat is racing or not will not significantly change the obligations between boats. Part 2 rules will apply between them because of the preamble of part 2. So the obligations between boats will be the same. Thats why i don't think we need to make an interpretation that conflicts with many other rules. The example of scorer fixing matters asministratively by scoring the boat DNC or DNS, clearly shows that the boat was not compiting in the wrong division race.

Deciding if blue was racing or not, will become really important not for part 2 rules situations, but for rule 42 if appendix P applies. Rule 42 is a part 4 rule, subject to preamble of part 4.