If you want to discourge protest hearings, then yes - you could change the points for DSQ in either the notice of race and/or sailing instructions.  It would take the form of, "A boat that is disqualified shall be scored points for the finishing place two more than the number of boats entered in the series. This changes RRS A4.2."

However, there is already an incentive for a boat to retire - to not waste time in a hearing.  If a boat knowingly broke a rule and is willing to "try her chance" in the protest hearing, then they have broken one of the Basic Principles (Sportsmanship and the Rules) and could be subject to a RRS 2 disqualification.

Personally, I think you are trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

As with many of the rules Appendix A provides a default setting so that if an organising authority does not mention this aspect (either intentionally or by forgeting to do so) then there is a base case upon which matters can be decided. As long as it is worded correctly any aspect of this appendix (or for that matter any rule which may be changed) can be changed in the NoR or SIs to encourage/discourage certain behaviours. It is up to the OA to decide what it is they want to do and for us in the judging community to apply their rules as long as they are properly drawn up.

Aslan,
I recently had an event where 7 contestants followed the leader the wrong way on the course.  The SIs were clear and no reason they should have been confused. Other classes had no issue with the race course.

The RC saw the error and called me (CJ) on cell and reported this and asked could they be scored DNF because of the errors.  Sadly I informed him that RC could not score them DNF without a hearing.  

The contestants realized they had done something wrong because they did not get a sound at the finish line and competed correctly in the next three races..  

My suggestion was for the PRO to inform each of the boats (personally at the dock)  what they had done wrong and tell them that the RC would protest them, but to suggest that it might be easier on all involved by them retiring.

 All seven of the contestants agreed and no protests were needed.  They were scored RET instead of DSQ or DNF.

In my years hearings protests I believe that almost all sailors feel their protest are valid and are not trying to game things.  If you were doing arbritration, I think you would find that there would be less than half protests going to hearing.
 

Aslan,
Scoring can be very flexible if you state the scoring system to be used in the NOR (J1.2.14).  I would repeat the instruction in the SIs as well.  However, that said, I personally would not deviate from Appendix A for any major event.

For a very long series that many clubs have (e.g. Summer Series) taking place over a few months (e.g. Monday Night Series - June, July and August), often increase the number of drops because people do go on holidays and may miss 3 or 4 races. 

Let your scoring reflect the philosophy of the event.

Llyod,
In your example where 7 contestants followed the leader the wrong way on the course, did the entire class sail the wrong course? If alll boats in the class sailed the wrong course and there was a time limit, the race should have been abandonded under rule 35. No boat sailed the course as required by rule 28 and finished within the time limit.

35 TIME LIMIT AND SCORES
If one boat sails the course as required by rule 28 and finishes within the time limit, if any, all boats that finish shall be scored according to their finishing places unless the race is abandoned. If no boat finishes within the time limit, the race committee shall abandon the race.


 

Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire.

2 FAIR SAILING

A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. A boat may be penalized under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated. The penalty shall be either disqualification or disqualification that is not excludable.

CASE 138

Rule 2, Fair Sailing

Rule 69, Misconduct

Generally, an action by a competitor that directly affects the fairness of the competition or failing to take an appropriate penalty when the competitor is aware of breaking a rule, should be considered under rule 2. Any action, including a serious breach of rule 2 or any other rule, that the committee considers may be an act of misconduct should be considered under rule 69.

Mark and Aslan,

       It wasn't me that went the wrong way, it was almost half of a one design class.  Wierd thing was that they seemed to be the starboard group, but not sure.  After all the races were completed over two days, the top three finishers in that class came from the group that went the wrong way in the first race because they did not have to include the "throwout".

       The propose of my post to Aslan was that emphasize that most racers are not cheats.  When told they made an error and will be protested, they usually will retire.  Usually when they really want a hearing, they believe they are right or do not fully understand the rules. Also the Protest Committee often has little input in the race SIs other than review for errors.  We just get to enforce the "rules" as they are.  

       The next best thing to have rule offenders retire is arbritation.  I do activelly try to get RC to incorporate this in the regatta.  Saves tons of time and I find the racers like it as well.