Ben said

Angelo said

I've sometimes thought about this.  I don't like the idea much because I think it could result in a NOR change being 'hidden' in the SI without giving competitors fair notice of the change.

I don't think the SI can change the NOR 'like any other rule change'.

RRS 86.1(b) says

RRS Introduction Terminology (Definitions that aren't Definitions) defines Racing rule as:

And the first sentence of RRS Introduction says:

So the NOR is a rule , but it is not a 'racing rule' therefore the SI cannot validly change the NOR.

AFL players cover substantially more ground than other so-called 'footballers'.

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.