I found the submission (167-19) that resulted in the change to 50.3/55.  The submission is to align the rule with the ERS definition of outrigger. The submission notes that the  "definition of ‘outrigger’ in current rule 50.3 is much broader than the definition of ‘outrigger’ that was adopted for the ERS" but doesn't seem to explore what the effects of the narrower definition might be.

I must confess that I hadn't registered that the ERS definition had somewhat changed the game, and in my first post was still thinking of outrigger in terms of the old rule and in general usage.

On this side, I see SI taking precedence very often. It is actually a "standard" approach. I assess that the OA prepares the NoR and the RC elaborates the SI.

Normally, the RC is more knowledgeable about the RRS and prepares "better" documents. The OA are sailing clubs that are less prepared to draft these documents.

Happy to hear any comment.

Interestingly, I have just researched MLS Rules - The mid-90's American modified 'soccer' rules.  It didn't really work.

However, MLS did have a countdown timer as Ang describes as well as some other variations to the traditional game.  MLS Penalties were pretty funky.

The MLS rules lasted 4 years.

------------
In this research, I find that the football rule makers, IFAB, remains institutionally conservative and deliberately resistant to game changes.
 ------------

I'm also finding that what I see as poor sportsmanship is, in some places, seen as the art of being street-smart and 'doing whatever it takes to win for your team'.  Perhaps all those dives and feigned injuries I saw Columbia doing the other night were heroic... to Columbians.  Tactics celebrated as "viveza" or "gamesmanship".

If half the footballing world are happy with that, things will never change.

On-field tactics such as shirt-pulling, heckling the ref, appealing when knowingly last touched, diving and feigning injury will always be worth-a-go.  If you can't beat them, join them.  Off the field, the unseen underworld will continue to prop up the sport, rightly or wrongly.

I don't think there is a solution coming any time soon.

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.