I would question the validity of a NSC if the race committee was not witness to the  competitor failing to sail the course. To me there is a possibility that the competitor reporting on another  competitor may be providing false allegations - I too am interested to hear what  the rule "test" for this is. 

I think that the race committee can assign this score only if it has first hand knowledge of the failure to sail the course, just as it requires first hand knowledge of failing to start or finish.

I agree that first-hand observation by someone on the RC would be needed, unless there is other obvious evidence.  I would not take another competitor's word for it.  This new "letter" score might also be used when a boat clearly leaves the course without notifying the RC that they are retiring.

I'm not sure, but I think the intention of the new definition finish is that the RC would score a boat NSC only if, at the finish line, they do not score her as finishing because they believe she did not sail the course.  How would they learn from a competitor or other source that a boat had not sailed the course?  Usually, only after the race has been scored and the scores posted.  At that point, the RC cannot change the boat's score because RRS 90.3(c) says "When the race committee determines from its own records or observations that it has scored a boat incorrectly, it shall correct the error and make the corrected scores available to competitors."  Rule A5.1 says "Only the protest committee may take other scoring actions that worsen a boat’s score."
 
 

If a competitor observed another competitor sailing the course incorrectly, then they have the right to protest that competitor.  As an RC, I would not accept the report from a competitor and urge them to protest.

On the other hand, if the RC scored a boat NSC, and the competitor believes it was done in error, then they are entitled to file for redress.  As a judge, I would question the sources of information that the RC used to determine the reason for the NSC.  Second-hand knowledge is very weak evidence, and I would want to hear directly from the accuser.

I agree that it's not appropriate for an RC to assign an NSC score based on other than first-hand knowledge. One reason I brought this up is that the other situations covered by A5.1 (DNS, DNF, retirement, etc.) would usually be observable by the RC in the course of their normal duties. That's not necessarily true of an NSC unless it occurs near the starting or finishing area, or is perhaps observed by a mark boat. 

It does seem clear that a competitor can still protest a boat for breaking 28.1 if they observe a boat failing to sail the course correctly. Presumably, if no protest is filed and the RC does not observe the error firsthand Case 128 would still pertain and the boat would be awarded her finishing place, no?

Matt, I agree on redress but seems like the boat could start with a scoring inquiry and if they convinced the RC they had correctly sailed the course could have their score corrected per 90.3(c).

Any thoughts about RC making the call without a hearing based on video that's presented to them?

There are some races that have tracking devices, if the RC is watching the feed, they can see of a boat started, sailed the course, or finished.  I suspect this would more of the long distance races, where there are gates that they want every to sail thru or latitudes they must sail above or below.  Rare cases.

TJ .. there are several perils to using tracking devices for sail-the-course challenges.  The IJM highlights several of these challenges and they vary based upon type and technology of the tracker .. but unless the same tracking-device is actually placed on the marks in question, the IJM deters their usage for conclusions relative to marks. - Ang

For Radio Sailing, under Appendix E, sailing with observers, and looking at E5.1(c), does that provide sufficient grounds for the RC to score a boat under A5.1 without a hearing?

I think 'Yes'

John

Wouldn't observers appointed by the race committee be considered part of the race committee? If so then I expect that anything they reported would be considered to have been observed by the RC

 Appendix M
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROTEST COMMITTEES

 ● The protest committee chairman should advise a party or a witness giving hearsay,
 repetitive or irrelevant evidence that the protest committee must give such evidence appropriate weight, which may be little or no weight at all.