No, No and No.
Case 96, Case 111 and most of all Case 65.
Come on guys. There is no question her only option is to retire and seek redress.
Fuck, i haven't even got a casebook handy, but im pretty sure one of them says....you don't argue a bfd.
Case 65 has to do with knowing you were OCS/BFD, continuing to race anyway for the specific reason of screwing another competitor.
Both 96 and 111 have to do with ZFPs and BFDs sticking after a general recall.
There has been no mention of a general recall in this instance.
Unless it's written in the sailing instructions that BFDs will be removed from the course, they have every right to continue sailing (unless it's a restart after a general recall or abandonment) and finish. 99% of the time, they won't even know they got a BFD until they see the scores posted.
Like i said, im on the move right now, and going from my head and memory.
JS posted the preamble to 96. Unleashed there is more in there, its pretty much a i remembered.
Maybe you can explain.
Having had a quick look, Cases 96 and 111 both deal with with recalls/re-starts. They do not address the question whether a boat called OCS/BFD should retire from a race in progress.
When a boat knows that she has broken the Black Flag rule, she is obliged to retire promptly. When she does not do so and then deliberately hinders another boat in the race, she commits a gross breach of sportsmanship and of rule 2, and her helmsman commits a gross breach of sportsmanship.
I know the case overall discusses gross bad sportsmanship, but the first statement certainly indicates that a boat identified by the RC has being OCS under a black flag should retire, if they do not they risk a R2 case and DNE if they interfere in any way with any boat on the course. I dont know any good class where you can win a national competition without interfering with any boat on the course.