Kent, the main issue with your approach above is that the U flag only penalizes being in the triangle < 1 min.  Not starting properly can’t be “exonerated” as without a proper start, they can’t finish.   An SI/NOR can not change a defined term. 

DR 21-01 might “look” confusing how it is presented, but its implementation is very simple .. reference the DR, choose what you want to happen and define the penalty.  

As you say, the DR is structured to allow for A LOT of flexibility for a wide variety of applications. That said, once you choose the options that work for you, it likely reduces to something simple … just 2 insertions in the NOR. 

"Not starting properly can’t be “exonerated” as without a proper start, they can’t finish."

I don't follow this logic.  Is that written somewhere?  A boat can be exonerated for breaking a rule.  The Definitions are - by definition! - part of the Rules.  If a boat is exonerated for breaking, in this case, the definition of start (a rule), then what's the problem?  The definition of start only applies to a singular point in the race.  Once you move past that point successfully - whether by starting properly or by exoneration - it should cease to be an issue.  This is true for exonerations for touching a mark and not keeping clear.  How is this different?

But for now, let's accept that one cannot be exonerated for "breaking" a definition.  How about this approach...

"A boat penalized under RRS 30.3 U Flag Rule shall be scored as OCS, receive a corrected time penalty of one (1) hour, and thereafter be exonerated for any breech of a rule stemming from her failure to start properly. This alters RRS 30.3 & A10."

The whole point of invoking exoneration is to allow the definitions to remain intact as (poorly!) written.  Thus, for example, if a boat doesn't technically "finish" because she was OCS in the specific context of this sailing instruction, her DNF is exonerated because it stems from her OCS condition.  If she is DNF for some other reason, not stemming from the OCS, then it will stand on its own merits.  I'm not saying this is a great solution - it's absolutely a work-around that shouldn't be necessary - but I'm trying to keep it simple and straightforward.

This sailing instruction is intended primarily as a deterrent and it's rarely ever applied in practice.  It pains me to use more than one or two sentences to describe it, much less referencing a separate document.  All this only reinforces how poorly conceived these changes to the definitions were in the first place.  WS should admit its mistake and fix it properly.

Kett (btw .. sorry for the earlier “Kent”),  I hope you know I feel your frustration.  Trust me when I say that, if there was an easier way to deal with this, it would have been disseminated. 

Re: “I don't follow this logic.  Is that written somewhere?”

Yes, it’s written in the def: start, finish and sail the course. These are def’s that cannot be changed by NOR or SI.  This is dictated by RRS 86.1(a).

Simply put, a boat can not finish if she never started.  You can’t change what it means to start in an SI/NOR.

A boat is not penalized for breaking a rule by not starting.  A DNS designation is not a penalty, it’s a documentation of a fact-found.  Just like DNF is not a penalty.   In effect, a DNS is just another flavor of DNF … DNS is a boat that did not finish because they never started, therefore her time/position when she crosses the finish-line is not counted. 

To “exonerate” (as you say) “breaking” the definition “start” would mean that you are allowing to count as starting whatever the boat did around her starting-signal when determining if the boat finished.  Therefore, you have changed what it means to start .. something that RRS 86 forbids.

There was a small working group that worked on examining solutions to this problem.  There were other groups other than that involved too, that included some of the top rules-folk in the world.  Trust me when I say that the the issue was beat on from every angle.

In the end, while following RRS 86, one simply can’t get around:
1) you can’t finish unless you start.
2) you can’t sail the course unless you start
2) you can’t change what it means to start, sail the course, and finish in an SI/NOR. 

Kett, there are two types of UFD disqualifications:

1.       A boat is in the triangle in the last minute before the start, but never on the pre-start side of the starting line at or after her starting signal.   Not meeting the definition of start.

2.       A boat is in the triangle in the last minute before the start, but on the pre-start side of the starting line at or after her starting signal.   Meeting the definition of start.

Your suggestion works for the second UFD scenario, but not the first one.

 

Starting is italics in the finish definition which means that it is a definition.   The boat in the first UFD scenario doesn’t meet the definition of start and therefore can't finish.   

Well. I also wonder why just not changing, in the NoR or Si, rule A5.2.
Ok, strictly, boats not started cannot arrive, but at the end it's only a matter of scoring.

Aldo, you make an excellent point that, despite these pedantic restrictions, the rules can be manipulated to accomplish almost anything - with enough words!  For example, in accordance with rule 86, I can hypothetically replace in the rules almost every instance of the terms "Sail the Course" and "Finish" with "Boogie On" and "Bring it Home", respectively, and then explain that these new terms are exactly like the old terms but without any reference to "Starting".  That would also solve the problem, but my SI would be very long!

Ang, to your point, the current definition of Finish looks and functions very much like a confected rule that should be in Part 3.  What does "after starting" even add to that definition?  Is there a risk of finishing BEFORE starting?!  Clearly there is a demand to finish under penalty without having started properly, so there's that to consider.  You're right, it is very frustrating.

Thanks,

Kett

There is a similar problem with boats in the Moth and WASZP classes that do Grand Prix finishes.
One way to address it is to not require boats to sail the course to get a score - This means they don't finish but the SIs determine how they will be scored.

yes, Ben. That's my point. Change the name of the situation. A5.2 is changed so that OCS (within a certain amount of time) will be classified according to their arrival position on the finishing line in relation to the boats  that finish, plus a penalizaton of..bla bla bla.
Chance the workd "finish" with arrival, and that's shoul do it.

Aldo and Kett .. my 2 cents is that personally, as a certified race official, I would not want to encourage/instruct people to create a parallel/shadow set of terms in their race-docs with the intention to circumvent the RRS.  I see it as a slippery slope that we do not want or need to wonder down.

The terms start and finish have branches that extend throughout the RRS.  Just looking at start, it is directly used in  21.1,28.1,29.1,30.1,31,32.1,35, 90.3,A4, A5.1, A5.2, A5.3, A5.4, Finish, Sail the Course, and the Section C Preamble. 

Next, if you follow the first major branches of what Finish and Sail the Course touch, I found 41 places combined in which Start, Finish and Sail the Course are referenced (when I took the time to look).  Sure, not all of those items need to be fixed, but the point is that it would be prudent to check them all to verify the impact if you were going to try to circumvent the term(s).  That seems like a lot of work (and unnecessary risk) to me.

By redefining start as the DR does, it fixes the trunk of the tree and all the branches automatically follow.  What might appear to some as overly complicated, is actually a simple and effective solution.

We have a workable solution that was developed by following the RRS rules and procedures, which results in 2-3 additional NOR items. 2-3 items seems like a trivial inconvenience to me.

Ang

Thanks everyone!  I think Aldo has the best solution for my needs.

I am going to stick with just a scoring change to A5.2 and maybe exoneration for 28.1.  The application of this instruction is so rare and narrow that I cannot justify more ink than that.

I hope that World Sailing considers the needs of local and regional sailors in the future.  We're not all sailing in the Olympics!

Best,
Kett