Classic WS world governance: The presumption of guilt till proven innocent.
I predict a US Sailing note re Appendix TS.
If as noted the vast majority of cases result in DSQ, where is the need for the presumption?
Let the facts determine the outcome.

I hope that everyone understands that, in the US, RRS 48.2 does not apply inside the COLREGS demarcation lines (which means SF Bay; see 33 CFR 80.1142) as written because it cites the IRPCAS (international) rule 10 and not the inland rule 10. The IRPCAS turn off and the Inland Nav Rules turn on when you are inland of the COLREGS demarcation lines. 
It would be best for the NoR and/or SI to simply change 48.2 in areas inside of the COLREGS demarcation lines by adding to the rule, “and the Inland Navigation Rules Act of 1980.” Neat clean and tidy solution.

As a SF Bay area sailor, umpire, and judge we have been dealing with this nightmare for years.  At least we now have wording that we can use rather than having to re-write this with every NOR and SI.  Personally, I don't think this is worth an appendix in the RRS.  Many venues have issues like this but are more or less unique to the area.  In San Diego there are exclusion zones around cruise and naval vessels, whether they are docked or moving.  In Sydney, if a ferry displaying a shape has to slow, speed up, or alter course in any way their rule is broken.  Neither of these is covered by this rule but are similar in intent.  Are we going to have an appendix covering each of these?

There are still a number of problems with this.

1.  When a ship signals with 5 blasts on the horn, the actual meaning is that the ship doesn't know what you are doing and please make your intentions clear, NOT danger.

https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/navrules.pdf
Inland Rules - Rule 34
(d) When vessels in sight of one another are approaching each other and
from any cause either vessel fails to understand the intentions or actions of
the other, or is in doubt whether sufficient action is being taken by the other
to avoid collision, the vessel in doubt shall immediately indicate such doubt
by giving at least five short and rapid blasts on the whistle. This signal may
be supplemented by a light signal of at least five short and rapid flashes.

The international section doesn't mention 5 blasts at all. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Regulations_for_Preventing_Collisions_at_Sea#INTERNATIONAL_REGULATIONS_FOR_PREVENTING_COLLISIONS_AT_SEA,_1972

2. There should be something that only allows the RC to protest when a report is made.  We don't want boats protesting one another just because they hear 5 blasts.

3. Unless the report is made promptly via radio to the RC, the hearing may occur well after the event, only once the report is filed by the pilot.  Getting people together for a hearing may be problematic and to then assume guilt goes against how all the other rules are applied.  The standard is that a rule is not broken until you are sure it has been broken.

4. What is the standard for the ship blowing their horns?  I have seen them making blasts continuously as they proceed through an area, whether or not any vessel is impeding their progress.

5. At a hearing what evidence will be provided?  Will it only be the written report?  How can the protested party question the other party as required in the penultimate sentence in RRS 63.6?  The RC may not have seen the incident, will they have to bring in the pilot to testify?  What if they don't or can't?  I would certainly want to hear what they saw to make a determination as to whether they simply overreacted.

I hope that they abandon this effort, it is a rathole from which there is no escape.

I should declare an interest.  I have judged offshore racing events since 2002 and whilst no longer an IJ due to ill health I was chairman of the working party which drafted and achieved inclusion of what is now appendix P -  judging offshore and oceanic races in the IJ Manual. 

Appendix TS is useful, does little harm and gives valid options for those drafting sailing instructions.   I am delighted to see race officials tackling the varied issues surrounding collision regulations.  As previously stated International Regulation for Prevention of Collision at Sea para 34 (d) - five short blasts indicates doubt on whether sufficient action is being taken by the other to avoid a collision.    I personally think it inappropriate to be subject to protest just because a ship is doubtful about a recreational craft's intentions.   Ferries in my home river of Lymington have been known to fire off five short blasts when they pass through the breakwater when no danger is present. 

If recreational craft, having heard  five short blasts take a course of action, making intentions clear and avoiding collision then no harm done and the protest committee should not uphold the protest.  If there is a complaint then that is a very different matter.  

However we are starting to build up a list of additional appendices for offshore sailing whole range which whilst individually excellent do not cover the  range of issues which may affect sailing instructions.  

IJ Manual Appendix P 2.4 schedules the issues which may need to be considered when drafting sailing instructions affecting offshore and oceanic races.  There are 26 of them.  

After completing our work on Appendix P of the IJ manual we made a case for drafting an offshore and oceanic appendix covering all relevant issues.  This was rejected at the 2016 conference in Barcelona.    I am not aware of any work being done to draft an appropriate oceanic and offshore appendix to the rules, despite the proposed inclusion of offshore racing into the Olympics in Marseilles in 2024.  

I do think that oceanic and offshore racing would benefit from the provision of an Appendix.   I believe that the exercise would be useful to draw together race officials to examine those rules needed for Olympic offshore race management, measurement, and rules observance.  The debate and potentially an overall oceanic and offshore appendix would also assist all those race officers worldwide grappling with the challenge of amending rules to suit individual races.  
  

Interesting article - didn't happen during a race.

https://gcaptain.com/sailboat-operator-cited-for-rule-9-violation-after-crossing-in-front-of-tanker-near-stockton/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Gcaptain+%28gCaptain.com%29&goal=0_f50174ef03-26a3cef7eb-170023329&mc_cid=26a3cef7eb&mc_eid=6f07c4a0bf

Glad to see that the boat crossing ahead of the tanker was fined.  

Irrespective of whether or not a boat is racing, if there is ever any issue between a ferry and recreational craft in my home port and a formal complaint made then a report goes to the club of the offending sailor.  If a member of my club had sufficiently breached the rules that a fine had been imposed then the club would consider whether it had been brought into disrepute by the action of the sailor.   A range of measures, including cancellation of club membership could be considered.