I agree with every word you said

I try to be respectful and non judgmental towards my fellow race officials.

So, 'Maybe'.

We need to remember that drafting and publishing NOR and SI, let alone the discussions and decision-making and planning that should precede drafting the documents, is a complex and quite difficult business.

There are a number of barriers or impediments to producing good, well coordinated documents, including:

Many otherwise highly competent people who get thrust into positions as Regatta Chairs or Race Officers don't have a good array of all these skills.

Those of us who have sat (and failed) judges exams including decision writing realise how difficult good writing is, and a protest decision is much shorter and less difficult than a whole SI or NOR.

I would suggest that getting an experienced judge involved early in the process, preferably at the NOR drafting stage, and keeping that judge on board through to the finalisation of the SI will help a lot.

But I've had experience with some sailing administrators who are reluctant to get judges involved in document development because 'they make things difficult'.

All of these numbers probably need to be rated according to the size of the field of play (ie. length and/or area) and perhaps other factors. For instance, ice-skaters probably move at 2-3 times the speed of a runner and water-polo players at 0.2 or probably less. The goal size is also a consideration. The number of players is perhaps another.

And Benjamin ... you failed to include Aussie Rules in your analysis. I am dissapointed :-(

In Aussie Rule we give 6 points for a 'goal' and 1 point for a 'behind').

Rugby is even more complicated depending on the code (ie. Union/League/Sevens/etc).

I think we are close to defining a universal score of the value of all sports. My only question is "Where does chess stand?"

John,

The way you are describing this seems to me to be unnecessarily complicating things.

So, for the first 3 regattas, you have a protest committee with no dispensation from appeals.

I think deliberately constituting a 1 judge protest committee is a very bad idea.  Among other things you are letting the OA off the hook for finding some local judges in training to get experience.

I don't understand what you mean by 'an IJ online for any support required'.  If you have one judge in person at the venue and other judges available on line, you have a protest committee that can do hearings with some members on line.

I have had quite a bit of success with one experienced judge at the venue doing Arbitration:  in my experience that can dispose of most protests, and it buys you a bit of time to get an on line hearing organised.

What you don't have is properly constituted International Jury Panels in accordance with RRS N12.4(b), so a party that is dissatisfied with the local committee's decision is not entitled to a hearing by the full International Jury.  What has to happen is an aggrieved party has to appeal to the MNA in accordance with RRS 70 and Appendix R, and the MNA then needs to appoint the IJ on your fully constituted International Jury to decide the Appeal.

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.