Just to be clear, I don't like the 'SI takes precedence' clause.  I never did.

If asked, I always discourage OAs from using such a clause.  But I still see it out there.  What's more... it is often out there without correct reference to the rule being changed!  Oh well.

Taking things one step further... just for laughs.

 

Is the SSI part of the SI or 'Other Document'?

Anyone have an answer to my above question?  I've looked and couldn't find a rule. 

Rephrased ..

Is there a rule or regulation, outside of class rules, which forbids the use of a hand-held stick/pole to hold a boom forward?   

Likewise .. is there any rule that would forbid a "preventer" from being rigged (line and blocking attached to a boom to hold it forward when sailing deep downwind)?

I have a recollection of seeing research that the very low scoring rate in Soccer was part of the appeal, adding an element of randomness to the game. It also means that there's a lot more riding on an individual score.

The challenge of introducing a rigorous discipline system in Association Football is that until players had adapted to it it would radically change game results. The first team that managed to discipline itself to abolish cheating would have a massive advantage over the others that wasn't related to skill.  Given an audience, press and public, that still condoned cheating (as they currently do even if they don't realise it) this would be hugely controversial. 

Yes John, as I said there were obvious limitations with the selected model (not ideal of course but reflective of the reality of funds availability) – albeit, implemented from the outset on an ‘eyes-wide-open’ basis by all the parties, as I understood. 

By ‘senior IJ online support’ if needed, I mean to simply call on an ad hoc basis - where second opinion felt needed to be sought – and to remotely follow things.

We have attempted to recruit more JITs here (just myself at present) to no real avail so far but are actively seeking same for the future seasons. 

Appendix T route was included in the SI’s, for those applicable matters (in fact, it was well engaged in the third regatta) - but is still a bit ‘novel’ for competitors here it would seem (I have also noticed that some IJs are supportive of Arbitration process and others are not).

The process of elevating any Appeals was fully understood by all (via MNA etc) – just that none were forthcoming.

That being said, it all seemed to go along quite well 'considering' – from the perspective of MNA, OA (budgets) and competitors etc. I am not sure yet if this model will be selected again or otherwise for the coming National Season4 or a more conventional approach adopted (TBC), and for myself, I will just fit-in again with what is selected by them.

Is there a reason a finishing window couldn’t be based on the first boats elapsed time plus x%.
I.e. 50% = first boat 60 minutes, last boat 90 minutes, or first boat 120 minutes, last boat 180 minutes. 
The % could be chosen based on the handicap spread of the division - tighter fleet, smaller %, wider fleet = bigger %. 
I think this would solve an issue for my club. We currently only have a time limit of 2 hours for 1st then 3 hours for last. Our winter series can be either cans or harbour courses. The 2-3 hours is really for the longer harbour courses. We’ve had short cans courses lately due to light winds. The first boat has taken 40 minutes, the rest of the fleet done by 50, but one boat who should be mid fleet is off the pace, and took 100 minutes. Wore a bit thin with the start boat, who then got back in the dark, which then delayed prize giving for everyone else, but didn’t break the time limit rule. However, a 30 minute window wouldn’t be big enough on a 2 hour race, but 1 hour is excessive on a 30 minute race (we had one race which only took 20-30 minutes) . Can it be flexible as suggested? Or must we resort to the complicated (for or RO’s) formula / app to calculate? I can’t see anything in the rules.