'EU Football'!!!  Love it.  Just 'football' to most of the world!

Beau, I sense  your frustration at being a countryman of the country caught up in this on many sides.

But don't worry.  I'm trying not to see this as a reflection on the US.  I see it is a massive failure of the sport for sure.  That's my area of intrigue.

David mentions sports like Aussie Rules and Hurling.  I have mentioned rugby.  All equally physical invasion games.  Yet, don't have the same eroded principals of sportsmanship as does football.  On the contrary.  Anyone not familiar with rugby refereeing should simply youtube 'rugby vs football referee'.  So it is not the physical issue.

The game design is interesting - a quick search suggests that football has an extremely low scoring rate compared to other 'invasion games'.  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.

We can all recognise the $$$ aspect as being massively connected to the clearly questionable ethos on and off the field and propensity for corruption at all levels.  '$$$  ∝ corruption' is obvious.  But which drives which?

Perhaps it is not possible to fix football.  Perhaps it is an inevitable requirement of human nature.  Is football an organised corrupt self-centred pastime in lieu of more war and crime in the underworld.  Is football the yang to the rest of the sporting world's ying?

Of courses, this thread asks to compare with sailing - sailing is not an invasion game for starters.  It's a race (velocity/time sport).  The measure of 'action per minute' is slightly different.

However, I still believe that the dispute resolution, ethos, principals of sailing are strong and that helps the sport massively.  Football is in most need of similar robustness by its nature and $$$, but seems to be the weakest.

Go figure....



 ------------------------------------

Here is how invasion games stack up when you calculate the scoring frequency per minute of regulation playtime.

⏱️ Scoring Incidents Per Minute

SportMatch LengthAverage IncidentsIncidents Per MinuteMinutes Per Score
Basketball (NBA) | 48 mins | ~95.0 buckets | 1.98 scores | 0.5 mins (30 sec)
Netball | 60 mins | ~98.0 goals | 1.63 scores | 0.6 mins (36 sec)
Handball | 60 mins | ~60.0 goals | 1.00 score | 1.0 min
Water Polo | 32 mins | ~22.0 goals | 0.69 scores | 1.5 mins
Lacrosse (NCAA) | 60 mins | ~24.0 goals | 0.40 scores | 2.5 mins
Rugby Union | 80 mins | ~7.0 tries | 0.09 scores | 11.4 mins
American Football | 60 mins | ~5.5 touchdowns | 0.09 scores | 11.0 mins
Ice Hockey (NHL) | 60 mins | ~6.2 goals | 0.10 scores | 10.0 mins
Field Hockey | 60 mins | ~4.0 goals | 0.07 scores | 15.0 mins
Football (Soccer) | 90 mins | ~2.6 goals | 0.03 scores | 34.6 mins

I think you're probably right that the precedence provision has to be in the NOR.

RRS 86.1(b) says

The notice of race or sailing instructions may change a racing rule.

It might be argued that because:

 the race committee, through its SI, has no authority to change the NOR, although it might be possible to obtain the OA's agreement to changes made by the race committee

I think that, wherever the provision is, each 'conflict' between the SI and the NOR is a change to the NOR and is subject to the adequate notice requirement of RRS 89.2(b), that is to say this SI have to be published an adequate time before the effect of each change in the NOR.

If the precedence provision was in the SI and not in the NOR, that would indicate me that it was not part of a well thought out document control strategy, and I would regard any 'conflict' with considerable suspicion.

Bear in mind that most 'conflicts' occur by mistake, rather than being deliberate.  If the race committee changes the NOR by mistake in the SI, and there is a precedence provision, the race committee and the protest committee are bound hand and foot by the mistake.

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.