Ben re "Perhaps it is not possible to fix football. .. In fact the lowest of the search.  As I have suggested before, I think this has something to do with the problem - but it could also be the attraction.  It could be the reason which draws the corruption into the circle."

Intersting.   When you look the USA's 3 main sports .. US Football (NFL), Basketball and Baseball .. especially NFL and Basketball .. both games have changed significantly to increase scoring opportunities and open up the game.  

NFL has changed rules which benefit passing over the years.  Basketball added the 3-pointshot.  Both of these transformed the games. 

Even Baseball to a lesser extent with the addition  now of timers limiting time between pitches and the behavior of the batter .. both which have sped up the game and changed to how outfielders can be positioned it increase scoring opps. 

If low scoring is the problem in Football (soccer) then one obvious and easy solution would be it increase the size of the goal.   Also .. as far as bad feelings from the  crowd from too much/little extra time .. just have a timing official keep a clock and post that clock to the score board for everyone (including the players) to see in realtime. The ticking timer might even over time decrease some of these delay tactics if players could see that their tactic is having no effect as they watch the extra time ticking higher. 

I think that would be right.

But I think that in your NOR 1 you could refer only to selected parts of a document.

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.

Ok .. it seems to me in this case, the clew of the sail is sheeted to a boom which qualifies under 55.3(c).   55.3(c) is an "exception" to the main text and limits of 55.3's 1st sentence. 

Now that 55.3's first sentence doesn't apply ... where in the rules does it say you can't exert a forward force against a boom with a stick .. inside or outside the shear line?

Such a stick is neither a spin nor whisker pole, 

The device that is exerting the outward pressure on the sail is the 55.3(c)-allowed boom .. not the "stick" in question.  The stick in question is exerting a forward pressure on the boom .. not an outward pressure on the sheet or clew. 

I can't find a rule which limits the stick as long as the stick is applying pressure only to a 55.3(c)- qualifying boom. 

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.