Edo not think this is correct. This is a rule that says there may be changes you do not have to specify the change

You should reread 85.1. It requires that the NOR or SI has to specifically mention the rule it's changing. I thought the requirement was new, but this is actually carrying forward a requirement from the 2013 rules.

Charlie Underwood pointed out that the 2013 version in 86.1 stated that "Such changes shall refer specifically to the rule and state the change" and that the new rules just simplified the way the requirements were stated.

I think we are all in agreement that when an SI changes a racing rule, it is adequate to say, "This changes rule ____." IMO, the RC is only obligated to state what the new rule will be, and what rule has been changed, rather than providing a Dave Perry-like explanation of what the previous rule was, and an explanation of how the new language from the SIs changes it.

I have a problem with the word "change" as it can used too many ways in the SI's.  I have seen it used to mean "modifies" and have also seen it to mean "replaces".  Sometimes it is possible to determine what the intent, but seldom is really clear.  I wish that the Race Management training addressed writing SIs and changes like this.

to go back to the beginning A2 authorises the si to state something different this is therefore not a change of the rules. Mike

It seems to me that even if the SI's explicitly allows for a "different arrangement" (e.g. A2), changing the rules in the SI's still falls under 85.1 and the same requirements apply.

I disagree this is not a change, we teach it like this in GBR. Look in the RRS appendix L 17.3 it sets out the new drop position but does not refer to a rule change as I have indicated. Mike

the rule itself says the nor or si may make a different arrangement, as the rule envisages the different arrangement it is not an addition or change it is what the rule anticipates. mike

That's an interesting distinction, but I wouldn't agree.  I think just because the rule anticipates a change, doesn't mean it is not a change.  Now that we've disclosed this issue, I'm wondering how a jury will vote on it when a smart competitor brings it to our attention.  ;)

It's only a matter of time.

But I think that Mike might have a point here, when the rule (in this case, A.2) specifically permits "a different arrangement" in the NOR or SIs. But a controversy can be avoided if the R/C takes a "belt and suspenders" approach, and includes A.2 in the list of changed rules, and that also puts the competitors with poor reading comprehension a second opportunity to be aware of the changed rule. The mandatory language in rule 85.1 may mean that the practice of listing all changes in one section of the SI's may not comply with this rule, but instead, each "this changes . . . " must be in the same section of the SIs with the changed rule. For me, this means that the format in L.1.4 does not satisfy this requirement unless each sub-section in 1.4 sets forth the changed rule.

I think that from a comprehension perspective, this is probably a better way of putting competitors on notice of changes, rather than sprinkling them throughout the SIs.