What do you mean by

Is that something unique to your scoring program? If yes, then the scoring program needs to be adjusted to comply with the new rules.

If it is something else, please explain.

From a cursory bit of internet searching because I am not well versed in high point scoring systems, I found that CHIPS 3 scores are based on a formula.  There is no reason that you cannot enter a finishing place of 3.8 into the formula.  This is also how you would handle redress where the number of points, i.e. finishing position, is not an integer.  A scoring program would need to have this formula programmed so, as long as the UI allows you to enter non-Integer values, you should be ok.

There is another thread on this at https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/1820-cox-sprague-scoring-system.

Charley,
Our scoring program complies with this change.

I think the bigger problem is likely to be; can the OA's explain it to their skippers.
I have two examples

In both these cases OA's need to make decision ones clarifying the grey numbers between the Integers.
Sound like a lot of SI rewriting is needed to get this sorted.
D

David Curry,
The way the new rule is written, it's not the finishing place that gets a 20% penalty, but the score that gets said penalty. Hence the score would be 98 minus 20% of the score for a boat that started but did not finish.

Your SI's will want to specify a different penalty instead, as this default system will likely do nothing for you.

Edit To Add: You could simply use the old language in your SI's, or you could find any number of ways to interpolate the existing numbers.

Side Note: the existing numbers you use are odd as the gaps jump around instead of being linear or a curve. Why is climbing from 4th to 3rd 50% more valuable than from 3rd to 2nd or 5th to 4th?

Dave,

Interesting issue, but it appears to have been this way since 2017.  Under low point scoring, 'place', 'score' and 'points' are largely the same, but under high point, the distinction is much more problematic!

Under low point scoring, 44.3 isn't strictly a place penalty, but since low point place and points align, and when rounded to a whole number, it was effectively a place penalty.  It was not until this quad, with the rounding to tenths, that it's recognizable as a points penalty.  I don't like this change; it softens the penalty and (unnecessarily) makes it more complex.

That said, high point scoring really needs 44.3 to be a place penalty!  Here is the language for your NOR or SI...

"A Scoring Penalty taken under RRS 44.3 shall be the score for a boat's finishing place made worse by 20% of the number of boats entered in the race plus one, rounded to the nearest whole number (0.5 rounded up); but not worse than the score for DNF."  If A5.3 is in effect, you would say "the number of boats that came to the starting area plus one".

This doesn't alter or replace any other rule; 44.3(c) specifically allows for this sort of penalty definition to be in the race docs.

Cheers,
Kett