Michael, are you talking in general, to me or to someone else?

Just to clarify...

I started with... " If technology exists then we should use it!"

At an event where good tracker data is being used by RC, it doesn't take much to make it usable in hearings.  Especially these days.

I totally agree.   The RRS predominantly places the burden on the parties to bring their evidence and means to 'present' it. (Appendix M8.a).  I fully support that.  We are not there to build the parties' cases.  Go get it yourself.

 
Well, the RRS has always included the provision that the PC may use 'any other evidence it considers necessary'.  This sets the sailing protest apart from a court system where the process is based only on what the parties bring.   Rightly and deliberately so.  In court the judge just listens.  Courts have people paid to do that job for a living.  Sailors on the other hand are just laymen trying to get a fair result in a sailing race.  Let's do what we can to get that fair result. We are not a court.

So again my point is, if the PC has access to the central 'tracking system' being used and it would improve the quality of the hearings, I absolutely see no problem with them utilising that somehow.  I am not suggesting placing any 'burden' in the rules on the PC to have to use any kind of evidence, if they do not think it necessary.

But I'm also finding the notion of 'only use technology if its brought to the hearing by the party' a little archaic.  It's there and not going away. It could improve the quality of the decision and save time.  Use it.  Many systems already can be configured so competitors can access the tracks.  Great.  If that's the case, let them find the correct file and take the screenshots etc...

I think it comes down to the confidence and technical capabilities of the PC members, whether to use technology.  I'm sure over time those the software will improve, as will the general skills of judges - making it a no brainer to incorporate the technology into hearings in future.

(As for who supplies the video screen, well if the PC wants to watch a tracker, it should have something to play it on!)

I am curious at some events which 'limit' the use of the tracking system for hearing.

I never really understood this - remember thinking it was rather regressive.  Hopefully, that is becoming redundant now that technology has moved on.

Hope that helps.

Thanks very much John. I appreciate your efforts in replying in so much detail.

Our annual program includes a Pointscore Series (Pursuit format; scratch -> biased towards slower boats) run every fortnight ( 15 races per season), Championship (Yardsticks; 2 races each day; 14 per season) and Sprints (Yardstick, 3-5 races per day; 24 say races per season) => run in turn every other week.  (so C-P-S-P each month).
 
We'll be running our annual October Regatta (6 Divisions) , Hobie States, Spiral Nationals + the International Canoe World Titles this year so we'll be busy, and having lots of fun and enjoyable times out on the Bay!

As Race Secretary I want to apply a common entrant list and a common set of rules for our club races. (KISS).  We are transitioning from a Cox-Sprague system to low-point (Sailres) next season. We have a meeting next week to decide on the rules.

After much research and simulations and yours, and others kind feedback, my preferred approach is DNC= Starters+4. I thinks the committee could settle on DNC = [12] which is starters + 4 for our average fleet size of 8-10. There is a group who want to keep the regatta approach of Entrants + 1.
 
We'll see who 'wins' the debate. Interesting Times (pun intended)! 

Cheers and Thanks again for all the great feedback. 
PS many clubs face similar issues and so it is worth discussing it here.

Looks like several scoring systems allow for it.  You will find the instructions for how to do it on RacingRulesOfSailing.org here.

This may be relevant =>>>   https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/5752-minutes-advantage-formula-for-pursuit-races-based-on-phpf-hcp

Yup, Case 67 settles this explicitly in a W/L collision causing damage to a non-racing boat, it does not explicitly deal with the amount of damage caused being a conflict since in this case the rule 69 implications removes that discission.  I can't find a case where monetary damages were seen as a conflict of interest in the way it's implied in this discussion.  But the definitions are poor for several things including "damage" vs "major damage", and major damage isn't even a requirement, only that it may have caused major damage. so there is always room for interpretation.