Findlay, the answer is in your J2.2 reference. This limit is allowed if specified in the SI. 

No start =   No sail-the-course or No Finish = No score =  No 90.3 conflict.

I’ve had to deal with this issue from the RC side.  I had to make the decisions for several years of whether or not the Wednesday night race would be held, a season-long scored event, when  bad weather was seen on the horizon, I would cancel the races because I wanted the results to be based on the competition and not based upon who had the most guts to risk boat and crew. 

I didn’t want to turn the series into a “game of chicken”. 

This issue of  lopsided scoring benefit is more extremely felt when a season-long event is scored simply as a regatta.  In these instances a “first place score” when only 1 boat is out is not quite “fair” to the boat that beat 10 boats with their first in the same series. 

There are other scoring methods which solve this automatically. These scoring systems track “the number of boats beaten” in one way or another.   That way you going out by yourself does not inflate the accomplishment of besting no one. 

Findlay, there is big non-sequitur implied in your questions and it was not addressed by Guarino's correct comments above. You state an ~interpretation~ which is not warranted when you jump from Rule 90 instruction to the RC, that it has to score a race when a boat started, sailed and finished, to the conclusion that "it is not valid to state a minimum number of boats for a race". There is no logical connection between them. Nowhere do the Rules talk about a minimum number of boats to constitute a race. What is valid is strictly what is written, you cannot speculate. On the other hand, nothing in the rules say that the NOR cannot state a minimum number of boats to constitute a race; on the contrary, it is quite usual to find NORs itens such as "A minimum of 5 boats is required to constitute a division or class". Normally this last quote means that 5 boats are required to register (and pay!), if nothing else is stated the registered boats are not required to start for the race to be scored if at least one shows up and finishes. The point is: after a boat registers to race, coming out to the race course is already part of the contest. (Mind I say the NOR should declare the restriction because it has a direct bearing on the decision to race, the SIs are too late...)

I'm thinking that if the SI specifies a minimum number of boats and fewer boats come to the starting area there is no race so nobody gets scored. 

If there is a race and at least one boat finishes, they must be scored. 

Edited to add - I can kind of see the OA's position that you shouldn't get points for a win if you're the only boat in your fleet. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. 

Tim, I guess you did not have time to see my comment just before yours. I repeat this is not a subject for SIs. Any such restriction must be stated on the NOR because it has a direct bearing on the decision to race. I could say that, if only the SI declared the restriction, a boat having finished alone will ask for redress if he is not scored. The boat registered and the NOR did not state any restriction, the redress should be given and the boat scored. Read the App. J2.2 (36).

Bruno, interesting points. The J2.2 rule stated is directed toward the number of boats in the race area required for a race to be started.   Sure if they started a race and a boat finishes, and not scored there is a redress possibility. 

But for the sake of discussion let’s say the RC misses that point and does not put it in the NOR, only the SI.  Only 1 boat shows up and the RC refuses to provide a start for that class. What is the possible redress and the basis for it?

I can see Bruno's position, but Appendix J says that restriction shall be in the SIs if applicable and is silent about it being in the NOR. And it's specific to the number of boats that come to the starting area, not the number of boats registered. 

A boat might make a decision not to enter a race because too few boats are entered but I can't see how a boat could make a decision to enter a race or not based on the number of boats that come to the starting area as that's not knowable until race day. 

Findlay, the RC’s main concern is scoring fairness for the boats that do not show up.  

Another approach that I’ve used in the past is to change A9 such that DNC and DNF is based on the # of boats that start that race instead of the number that came to starting area.  

That way, say there are 5 boats entered in your class.  This week, you are the only one who shows up.  Fine.  You get scored 1 and the other 4 boats get a 2

Actually, we changed it to be:

DNF = starters + 1
DNC = starters + 2

... as we thought it was fairer to give a differential to those who came out attempted to compete. 

For long weekly series that span months, this worked out well, boats who showed up got a start and the “play chicken” pressure was off those who thought it the better part of valor to stay home or quit early, as they only lost 1 or 2 places. 

You might consider suggesting something like that. 

You both are right to point out that J2.2 apply to SI and this because it is talking about boats showing up at racing area. My point is that at registration a boat should know which restrictions apply on the realization of the race. But, it would be an interesting point to be brought to the attention of the WS Rule Comm. as to add the need to state the restrictions on the NOR.

Findlay MacDonald

said Created: Today 00:38

One shouldn't speculate about the purpose of rules, but the effect of rule J2.2(36) is to require a race committee, if they wish to specify a minimum number of boats appearing in the starting area for a race to be started to so state in the SI.

No.

The SI can void a race for too few starters, by requiring or permitting the race committee not to start the race.
SI can NOT void a race for too few finishers, because of rule 90.3a, but rule 90.3a does not refer to starters.
NOR/SI can, however, restrict the prizes to be given for races with too few finishers, or could, if the OA/RC wished, provide disadvantageous scores in series pointscores where only few boats finished.

Yes they can, provided they address number of starters, and make sure that the race never starts.

If the race committee makes the starting signal for your class, and you start and finish the race, then Yes.

Otherwise, if the race committee never starts your race, No.

No.

Sailing is an inclusive sport.  We should welcome the lazy, the unskilled, the mechanically inept and indeed the fearful.

Angelo Guarino

said Created: Today 03:03

Firstly, Bruno has discussed the interaction between the NOR and the decision to enter.

The SI, addressing individual races may affect the decision of a boat, once it has entered to race.

While it would certainly be desirable for the OA/RC to lay all the cards on the table in the NOR, I can quite see the difficulties with redress.

Was there an 'improper action or omission', if so what?

I wouldn't agree that including a requirement in the SI in accordance with rule J2.2(36) is an improper action:  complying with a rule cannot be an improper action.

Likewise, I would not then agree that complying with the requirement in the SI and not starting the race is an improper action.

Is NOT including the requirement in the NOR an improper omission?  Maybe.

Was there any fault of the boat's own?

No, no problem there.

Was the boat's score or place in a race or series actually or possibly made worse BY THE IMPROPER OMISSION?

With respect to score:  No:  a 'void' race does not change any boat's score:  it cannot make any boat's score 'worse'.

With respect to place in series:  indeed, it is possible that by not starting the race for the boat, her place in the series may be made worse.

BUT

We have agreed that the impropriety lies in the omission of the condition in the NOR, NOT in the inclusion or implementation of the SI.

Was the place of the boat in the series made worse BY THE OMISSION OF THE BOAT LIMITATION FROM THE NOR?

Answer:  No.

Conclusion.

Whether or not the omission of the boat limitation in the NOR was an improper omission, no boat's score or place in a race or series was made worse by that omission.  No boat is entitled to redress.

So much for the formal redress process.

Once redress under rule 62 is eliminated, there is no other provision under the RRS to satisfy a competitor who is aggrieved by an improper action or omission by the OA or RC, but obviously, the OA, in good faith will want to do fairness to all entrants.

Example 1

Consider a club series of say 15 races over several months.

I would suggest that an OA/RC decision that it is not fair to all competitors to let a sailover give a significant advantage to one boat, and to iimplement the provision of rule 2.2(36) to prevent this is, while debatable, ultimately, reasonable.

Even if it happened two or three times in the series, I don't think that it is likely that failure to include warning of the provision in the NOR would substantially affect competitors decisions to enter the series.

I think the OA would be justified in taking no action, and if competitors don't like it, they can vote with their feet next season (that's the risk the OA takes).

Example 2

Consider a 5 race regatta over a weekend (with, for simplicity, no drops).  Say, 8 boats enter.

All boats sail three races in fair average conditions on Saturday, and a clear pecking order has emerged in the pointscore.

Sunday dawns rainy and cold and all but one boat decide to stay ashore.

Two bullets is probably going to get that hardy soul onto the podium at least.

A wise race committee, as soon as they see that there are fewer than the specified number of boats intending to race, will up with N over A.

The one thing you can guarantee is that if the race committee starts the lone boat and scores her, there will be well founded requests for redress from other competitors.

What's the OA to do?

Firstly engage in some 'talking therapy' with the eager beaver.

Maybe offer the 'most improved' prize, or worst case, refund of race fees.

But once they have put their NOR and SI in place, they're stuck with them.

John I agree.  I couldn’t t see a way for redress to succeed either (for not starting a race), given the SI was in place.

I think your Example 2 is interesting to consider assuming the SI’s are silent on the min # of boats to start a race, and if the NOR only talks about minimum #’s of boats in a class who enter. 

Assume no daily check-in, there are several fleets on a rolling start, the sequence for the fleet in question proceeds in order and to the surprise of the RC, only 1 of 10 boats starts. They discuss and decide to abandon the race on Rule 32.1(d) “fairness of the competition”.  Defensible proper action?

This is all very interesting to consider as I don’t think I can remember seeing ‘minimum boats to start’ language in the SI’s very often. 

I don't think RC can invoke 32 until after the starting signal, and then they must express a reason that satisfies 32.1(d). Seems like a boat could request redress if they thought the reason was insufficient and PC can decide. 

But under RRS 27.3 the RC can abandon a race before the starting signal "for any reason." If the RC's reason is "too few boats came to the starting area", even without an SI that specifies a minimum, is that an error or omission?

Yea, that's what I'm saying .. after the start, they abandon.  Yes, the boat can request redress.

So, sequentially there are a several different moments right?   

So, if "too few" boats showed-up, you'd hope that if the RC intends to skip that class, they will simply never raise that class's flag .. and thus there is nothing to abandon (#1 above), right?  27.3 addresses my #2 above and 32 my #3 & #4 above.  #4 must also consider 'consequences for all boats in the race or series', a consideration not specifically required in #1-#3.

Also, you say "too few" which is much less specific than comparing "one" to "more than one".

I think an RC would be on MUCH shakier ground if they refused to provide a start if 2 boats showed up vs one, if the SI's are silent on the issue.

There is the idea of entering into a contract to conduct races between competitor and the OA which over hangs this, which we discussed in another thread  (I can't seem to find it .. maybe John A. remembers that thread and can find the link, as I remember we both contributed to it).

It may be semantics (or pedantics) but I think if a race is scheduled (a NOR is issued) and the OA decides not to run it, it must be abandoned. I don't think the RC can just "skip" it.

Prior to the start I think "too few" would be entirely at the discretion of the RC. They may logically be on shaky ground if 2 or especially if 3 or more come to the starting area but I don't think they could be tagged with an error under the rules since before the starting signal "any reason" is sufficient. 

Technically I think the RC could abandon for "too few" even if the SI did specify a minimum and the minimum was met, unless the SI also changed rule 27. 3 to require (rather than allow) the race to be started as long as the minimum was met. And I feel like the "any reason" standard is a reasonable one, I don't think it would be a good idea to obligate an OA/RC to start a race if they felt they had any reason not to. 

So, I went down a bit of a rabbit hole looking at def's for "race" (noun).  "racing" (verb) is of course RRS-defined, but you can't always take a different from of a word RRS-defined and slip into the other form.

In the end, I ended-up settling on moving from the RRS's verb-form of "racing" to the noun-form. ("race" is not italicized in the RRS 32) 

If we go with the dictionary def's of "race" (noun), by definition a single boat can not be in a race, if her result is not directly compared to another competitor's result.  All def's I found require competitors (plural).  Therefore, if we go with dictionary def's of "race", the entire question was moot, as a single boat can not be in a race.  I don't think we can go there with the RRS-def of "racing" hanging about, and the RRS requirements for a boat to be scored if she sails-the-course and finishes.

So, if we go with the RRS, seems that we have a race when at least one boat is racing and a boat is not racing until her prep-signal.  The definition uses the language "from" and then "until"; a beginning and an end.  If we go with dictionary def's of "race" (32's instance of the word is not italicized) we can't have a race with just one boat.

This is all very interesting.

Hmm. Even under that definition it seems to me that as long as more than one boat is entered you can still have a race, no matter how many come to the starting area. Even a class of one may still be competing with other boats for series or overall honors.

And since RRS doesn't provide for a forfeit if only one competitor shows up, the single boat must still start, sail the course and finish to be scored. 

Hi  Folks

firstly,  many thanks for a lot of  thoughtful feedback. Really appreciated.
I am reviewing my original position/interpretation, and will re-post.

For the purposes of the discussion I wish to split it as follows:
1)  technical discussion - legality and practical implementation of a '2-boat SI' and use of RRS
2)  Moral discussion - of implementing a '2 boat rule' 

I need to do this do separate 'emotive/moral' discussion regarding facilitating sailors/inclusivity/gaming etc, from pragmatic implementation. 

Bare with me,  I'll repond shortly once I have re-composed my technical 'thoughts'. 
Once I am clear on the technical, I'd like to proceed with the morality of a 2 boat rule, and possibly philosophical questions about  what is a race and it's purpose ! :-)  ... it'll be stimulating, might even  be fun.  

many thanks /findlay  

 Angelo Guarino

Said Created: Today 12:57

 

John I agree.  I couldn’t t see a way for redress to succeed either (for not starting a race), given the SI was in place.
 
 I think your Example 2 is interesting to consider assuming the SI’s are silent on the min # of boats to start a race, and if the NOR only talks about minimum #’s of boats in a class who enter. 

 

 

 

 

Assume no daily check-in, there are several fleets on a rolling start, the sequence for the fleet in question proceeds in order and to the surprise of the RC, only 1 of 10 boats starts.

 

 

 They discuss and decide to abandon the race on Rule 32.1(d) “fairness of the competition”.  Defensible proper action?

 

 

This is all very interesting to consider as I don’t think I can remember seeing ‘minimum boats to start’ language in the SI’s very often.

Neither can I.
 
 
 

Tim Hohmann

Said Created: Today 13:20

I don't think RC can invoke 32 until after the starting signal, and then they must express a reason that satisfies 32.1(d).

 

 

 Seems like a boat could request redress if they thought the reason was insufficient and PC can decide.

 

 

 But under RRS 27.3 the RC can abandon a race before the starting signal "for any reason." If the RC's reason is "too few boats came to the starting area", even without an SI that specifies a minimum, is that an error or omission?

 

 

 Angelo Guarino

Said Created: Today 15:49

 

 I don't think RC can invoke 32 until after the starting signal, and then they must express a reason that satisfies 32.1(d). Seems like a boat could request redress if they thought the reason was insufficient and PC can decide.  

 Yea, that's what I'm saying .. after the start, they abandon.  Yes, the boat can request redress.
 
 

 "for any reason." If the RC's reason is "too few boats came to the starting area", even without an SI that specifies a minimum, is that an error or omission? 

 So, sequentially there are a several different moments right?   

1.    before the sequence starts

2.    in sequence before the starting signal

3.    after the starting signal before the first finisher

4.    after the first finisher

 

 

So, if "too few" boats showed-up, you'd hope that if the RC intends to skip that class, they will simply never raise that class's flag .. and thus there is nothing to abandon (#1 above), right?

 

 

  27.3 addresses my #2 above and 32 my #3 & #4 above.  #4 must also consider 'consequences for all boats in the race or series', a consideration not specifically required in #1-#3.

 

 

 Also, you say "too few" which is much less specific than comparing "one" to "more than one".
 
I think an RC would be on MUCH shakier ground if they refused to provide a start if 2 boats showed up vs one, if the SI's are silent on the issue.

 

·         under rule 32.1d, the test is whether there was a direct effect on the fairness of the competition;

·         under rule 27.3, the test is whether the reason is an improper purpose

 

There is the idea of entering into a contract to conduct races between competitor and the OA which over hangs this, which we discussed in another thread  (I can't seem to find it .. maybe John A. remembers that thread and can find the link, as I remember we both contributed to it).

 

 

Tim Hohmann

Said Created: Today 16:13

 

It may be semantics (or pedantics) but I think if a race is scheduled (a NOR is issued) and the OA decides not to run it, it must be abandoned. I don't think the RC can just "skip" it.
 
 Prior to the start I think "too few" would be entirely at the discretion of the RC.

 

 

They may logically be on shaky ground if 2 or especially if 3 or more come to the starting area but I don't think they could be tagged with an error under the rules since before the starting signal "any reason" is sufficient. 

 

 

Technically I think the RC could abandon for "too few" even if the SI did specify a minimum and the minimum was met, unless the SI also changed rule 27. 3 to require (rather than allow) the race to be started as long as the minimum was met.

 

 

And I feel like the "any reason" standard is a reasonable one, I don't think it would be a good idea to obligate an OA/RC to start a race if they felt they had any reason not to. 

I think this may be a case where the "add water" principle applies.

A RC could, under 27.3, determine that any number of boats coming to the starting area would be "too few" and abandon the race for that reason. But what would any reasonable RC do?

If only one boat came to the starting area, and if common practice for the OA or an "unwritten rule" said that they didn't start races with only one boat, then the RC would probably abandon the race before the start and be within their rights under 27.3. And if there was an SI that specified a minimum number of boats to start a race I believe the RC would choose to abandon before the start if fewer boats than were specified in the SI showed up, again justified by 27.3

I find it difficult to believe that, if conditions otherwise favored racing, an RC would abandon a race before the start when at least two boats showed up to race.

I also find it difficult to believe that if the minimum number of boats cited in an SI showed up the RC would still choose to abandon before the start.

Starting a race with a number of boats that the RC felt was too few and then abandoning after the start seems silly, I don't see why any RC would choose to do that.

John A said: ““Here's the nub.  Although nobody has yet mentioned it, I think that ‘One boat constitutes a race’ is a pretty widely held principle. “

See my standalone post on that one.  I can’t find any general support that one competitor constitutes a race. 

“Race” is not italicized in 27 or 32 so it is independent of  the RRS def. of racing.  Even an independent racer competing alone in time-trials is racing against previous recorded times, or their time will be compared later if they went first, or they are racing against their personal best. 

Traversing a course alone and recording a time only becomes a race when that performance is compared to another.  It even seems a more bizarre concept when considering a single OD boat, where all that is recorded is the fact that they started after her signal and finished within the TL.  

Fairness goes both ways, I think, particularly in a series or points competition. If you allow one boat to sail and record an easy bullet that may not be regarded as fair by the other competitors. But it's also not fair to the single boat that comes out to be denied the opportunity to race just because their competitors choose not to race that day. 

If it's a single, standalone regatta it seems like the prudent thing for the RC to do would be to roll the singleton into another class if possible. For a series my opinion would be to let them race. 

I'd also say that in a sailing context, a race is a race when a Notice of Race has been published. It remains a race, no matter how many competitors are in it, unless it's abandoned. 

Hi folks

thank you all for remunerating ...  still processing. :-)  Regards to fairness (let's say moral discussion) I 'll make  a quick  comment but do want to  return to this as it's fundamental to what we as a club are trying to with racing, this is where the emotions kick in ....   anyway

Tim wrote succinctly: 

My position under   4  no boat is obligated to  sail and have the choice not to and not to be questioned why.  The rules do not discriminate against  a yacht for mechanical/skills/logistics/desire (lack of)  that does not sail.  CHOICE !   Sailing as mentioned is an inclusive sport. a 'minimum boat rule' (2 boats) discriminates against a boat that wishes to sail under racing conditions and abide the RRS.  If a boat is without direct competition they are testing their skills against the course set by the RC, and conditions of the day (this could be breeze, but also  very light airs and even moderate). There is a discipline: A) turning up to sail B) adhering to the RRS.  A min. boat rule negatively discriminates. it denies a boat (too few boats)  from engaging and competing.  

The likelihood this may occur only once/twice a season (high summer when folks are  on family holidays). 

I have a  series of use-cases  where  min. boat rule will detract from the sport.  I'll share these with ye once I 've  finished  clarifying my understanding of implementation of rules and  possible SI-amendment.   

I am taking my time, as the proposal will have far reaching implication - almost all negative as far as I can see. 

Yours /findlay 

Specific Question: Flags

John Allen Wrote:

I read through the rules, but I couldn't see anywhere this is possible, but let me know how this would work.
i.e.  the RRS state in  Racing Signals    N over A All races are abandoned. No more racing today

As with all the  'abandonment' signals it is not class (race-specific) it is  'All Races'

I would think a  'race-specific'  abandonment after a  rolling start is not possible, and a RC can be protested. 

In the initial paragraph of Race Signals:

As for fairness of allowing vs. abandoning a race with only one starter, my point is that there are fairness arguments both ways and the OA/RC needs to decide for each individual event which they think is most fair for all competitors. I don't think there's a general right answer.

Hi  Tim
(evening)
fairness :  -  I understand both sides though I am obviously biased. I'd like to work this out  (later though).  :-)

flags:  visual signal ... ah ! ... thanks  the first paragraph (inside cover!) of the RRS. thanks :-) 

Hi 

here goes ....

Technical implementation of a 'insufficient boat' SI Amendment. 

I understand the following, please correct me if wrong. (non-sequitur's etc)

SI Amendment: The Sailing Committee can update the Club/Racing organization's SI in accordance to J2.2 (see clause (36/aj)

It is possible to amend and require a '2' boat minimum for a race'  - let it be called 'insufficient boats' rule,  as it could state a minimum of 2,3,4 or more. 

Scenario1) Starting 'normal fleet sequence'  with no 'insufficient boats' SI rule:
A rolling start sequence is initiated for the regular 5 classes. 
Rule 26 If a class flag is shown, a class can race and is started when the start signal is given. (see definition of 'start').

- if only a single boat starts it will be scored (Rule 90.3 )

- see case  1225

Scenario2) Pre-start, Pre-sequence,  with 'insufficient boats' SI   
A rolling start sequence is initiated for the regular 5 classes.
Class '1' are racing, and '2' are in sequence
Class '3' are congregating but not many...
Rule   27.3  can be used to  postpone or abandon racing. The flags (N over A) is raised over an 'errant' class flag. All other classes can continue through the start sequence. 

This is a difficult call for the RC: pre-start, some boats may still be making their way to the start area. (I've raced on the Solent and it takes 40mins at 5knots to get to the start in the Hamble/Warsash Series). Such a call could be controversial if called early, therefore it's unlikely.

Flag sequence would also need reviewed ... tricky if a sequence isn't adhered to. 

Note - Class '3',  may have convened ashore, and agreed they will not race and out of courtesy informed the RC as to expect a 'no show'.  this might be useful information to other class if an abandonment for the class was signaled. 

A rolling start sequence is initiated for the regular 5 classes.
Class '3' are errant and insufficient boats are in the start area.
Class '1' are racing, and '2' are in sequence
The RC choose to enforce the SI 'insufficient boats' - this is signaled by not to flying the class flag. when Class 3 is supposed to be raised. Class 4 flag is raised instead ! 

Legally this could expose the RC – the SI may very well have a written order for a rolling start, never mind utter chaos breaking out in fleet 4 and 5 now that their starts are pulled forward 5 minutes! Would it be worth the wrath for class 4 &5 in the bar afterwards... unless further SI are  written for competitors to anticipate a change in  the sequence. (Untidy). 

extra SI  amendments again for flag/signalling needed. 

A rolling start sequence is initiated for the regular 5 classes.
Class '3' are errant and insufficient boats are in the start area.
The Class '3' sequence has started.
The RC raise 'class 3' flag but within the 5 minutes to the start, the signal the case is abandoned. (N over A, over Class Flag). 

Pragmatically, the rolling starts continue - Class 4 & 5 dial into their sequences as normal. The 'insufficient boats' of class 3, are not given a start. Rule 90.3 is never invoked and no scoring (the desired effect of the SI) occurs. 

It is always possible boats arrive late for the start - there are no rules for starting late. Nor has RRS have an no option for a time limit of in which a boat must start the race after the start-signal. The RRS only have time limits relating to racing  See Appendix S12(1st mark/race time limit/finishing window). So, the RC is still at risk if a signal is given prematurely.
Enforcing the 'insufficient boats' SI is possible - but the RC must be utterly confident no late starters will appear.
do they need the extra pressure ?

Scenario5) After the start – 'insufficient (one boat)' no SI
See case 1225

Scenario6) After the Start - 'insufficient boats' SI rule: abandonment 
This is possibly the best way of implementing the 'insufficient boat' SI. 

A rolling start sequence is initiated for the regular 5 classes. 
Class '3' are errant and insufficient boats (i.e. one) are starts
It is clear no other competitors will arrive late. 
The result will be recognized  (See Rule 90.3), unless abandoned 
Abandonment is achieved by Rule 32.1

The signals (N over A, over Class Flag)  are given inc. Sound signals 

This can be signaled any time during when the 'one' boat is racing. i.e. even seconds before the boat finishes.

The logic comes apart here. The reason quoted most often to me that we need the '2 boat rule' is one-boat-doesn't-make-a-race. But the best way to implement the SI, is actually to start a race !

Scenario7) After the Start - 'insufficient boats' SI rule: no abandonment

A rolling start sequence is initiated for the regular 5 classes. 
Class '3' are errant and insufficient boats (i.e. one) are starts
The RC starts a race (class flag) and single boat 'Boat-A'  starts and complies with RRS. 
The RC (for whatever reason) did not choose to exercise the 'insufficient boats' SI, and no abandonment is signaled. 
It is clear the SI is contravened.
Meanwhile, another Class3 boat 'Boat-B' exercised Rule  4,  they did  not leave their mooring (Rule  45) for whatever reason. They observe Boat-A is the sole boat racing in Class3. 
The Boat-A  finishes - the race for the class has now finished. 

After Boat-A has finished, there is no further opportunity for the RC to be abandon/void the race. 

The result for Boat-A will be recognized. See Rule 90.3.

Boat-B, has no right to appeal the result. The RC did not implement the SI and a valid race was conducted - the result must be recognized. 

Summary
A 'insufficient boats' SI rule/amendment for normal series racing, is a poorly thought out and implementation fraught - it is still possible.

It requires a RC to be very aware of how to implement the rule and willing to implement.
The rule, is not implicit - it requires action to enforce. 
The SI  can only be enforced by
A) not starting a race for a class (not raising the class flag).
  - difficult when there is a rolling start and a set sequence of flags.
  - other amendments to the SI might be  required to facilitate the  implementing the SI, when operating a rolling start.
B)  issuing an abandonment for the class already racing or in a race sequence  - the easiest way is once a  race has started !  

The SI is not fool-proof. 
It does not safe-guard no-show boats  from a competitors scoring if the RC fail to abandon a race. 

It requires the competitor to be on the 'watch out' for the implementation of the SI, before and after the start - a game of cat-and-mouse. 
Is it sporting for the RC to put a boat through a sequence, start them only to abandon the race?

apologies if anyone's been trying to read my post above --- I 've been editing it as I posted. 
Hopefully I 've ironed out my non sequiturs

Thanks for all who've posted.  It's been an interesting week. my thoughts been become a lot more rational - it's been interesting how partisan I opened the post with. 

many thanks to all who've commented. I 've really enjoyed the engagement. I haven't read the rules book ever as much as I have in the past days ! :-)