I'm intrigued by the range of different approaches MNAs take with this rule.
At one extreme US Sailing have a 5-page guidance document on how to decide on approval, including stipulations of PC standards and composition.
At the other extreme, RYA don't even bother with approvals for this.
Most other MNAs sit somewhere between these two. Ireland have some conditions in their prescriptions. Poland hase some guidance (though I can't find it yet). Many just state 'Approval required' and nothing more
Does this huge spread signify some massive disharmony/misalignment in the world understanding of the meaning and purposeof this rule?
When an MNA requires approval, what are they protecting against? What should they consider? Should 'minimum PC standards" even come into question?
Why do two MNAs have such different ways of dealing with the same issue.
Some MNA just think they heed to control everything: some dont.
Some MNA, for example those with 'federalist' jurisdiction like USA and Australia feel the need to at least provide guidance to their constituent associations. Sometimes, certain constituent associations are identified as particular areas of weakness in numbers and qualifications of judges.
Some MNA have had past experience of denials of appeals miscarrying, for whatever reasons, and wish to prevent reoccurrence.
If there is a round robin phase followed by a finals phase, appeals are unworkable. 70.3(b) is required to ensure that the game doesn't stop because someone exercises their right to appeal!!
What about a case of a selection event, for say, regional / national representation 4 months later? In such a case, 70.3(b) cannot be valid, since the condition of "essential to promptly determine the result" is not met. Conversely, a selection event for representation 3 weeks after may need this rule, so that flights / hotel bookings, entry registrations can be done.
That's easy to understand and pretty logical. Perhaps the RYA response.
Why then does there need to be 'safeguards'? Safeguards against what? Why should we stipulate minimum PC standards?
I wonder if some OAs try to use this rule to achieve the finality similar to 70.3(a) / 90.3(e) but without the expense of bringing in an international jury? Perhaps that is what the safeguards are against... misuse of the rule by OAs to achieve closure/finality of results.