Thanks Ang. 

DR21 is a welcome clarification.  Readers should however note that neither this, not the night time sailing appendix RV, nor the virtual mark rounding rule are referred to directly in the revised IJ manual.  Whilst DR 21 is shown on the recently updated documents of the WS website finding the other two appendices is extremely difficult.  

The IJ manual is however helpful on the subject of why disqualifying boats for being OCS on a long race is inappropriate.  Some form of discretionary penalty has been in place for boats OCS for many offshore races for well over two decades and there are versions to suit all forms of offshore and coastal racing - not just pursuit races.  

Before the chapter in the IJ manual was redrafted by the (then) ISAF working party I chaired it was originally structured more as a guide for race officers and judges and it contained a table of all the rules affecting offshore racing and what changes might be needed.  I would suggest that such a guide would continue to be of assistance to race officers and judges tasked with offshore race management worldwide.  Being a retired IJ I'm not the person to handle the job, but it is a job that needs doing.  

David, I've found that if I search for "World Sailing Test Rules" in my web browser, it's comes up #1 every time ..

https://www.sailing.org/documents/racingrules/experimental-rules.php

Thanks Again Ang.

Any thoughts on this language?

"A boat on the course side of the starting line at her starting signal (OCS) shall receive a penalty of one (1) hour added to her corrected time and be considered to have corrected her starting error in accordance with RRS 28.2. This alters RRS A10 OCS."

This is for a TOT race, so a corrected time penalty is fairer than elapsed time.

Kett, I think if you use the DR above, your NOR might look something like ..  (using the required Start def, a 1 min OCS window, and penalty option #2) - ang

PS:  Please note in the DR, the OCS--time-window is customizable in the new def:Start.  I just selected 1 min because it aligns with the 1 min limitation in 30.1-30.4 and so competitors might be more accustomed to the idea of staying behind the line in the last min.    

That said, the DR allows you to select an OCS-window that make sense for your event parameters.

Thanks, Ang.  However, I was looking for a more streamlined approach than the DR.  I'm not running a high level event, so I'm not too worried about it.

I do see a few problems with the DR... 

What happens if a boat crosses the line within the time window, but then dips back below the line prior to her signal? For example, if the time window is, say, 4 minutes and a boat crosses the line while pinging the line? 

The DR and 30.1 seem to be mutually exclusive, as one prohibits returning to restart and the other requires it! 

Finally, the DR says that a boat "shall not return to the pre-start side of the line."  This restriction could become an issue in an adverse current or if taking a penalty turn, etc.  Perhaps "shall not restart" or similar would be more appropriate.

Different events may have different needs, but I like the language, "on the course side of the starting line at her starting signal".  That's really the essence of OCS and what you're typically trying to prevent.  I think World Sailing could add another element to rule 28 to accommodate this situation, thusly...

28.3  If this rule is invoked by the NOR, a boat whose hull is on the course side of the starting line either at, or within a specified time before, her starting signal, shall receive a specified scoring penalty and, thus, shall be considered to have corrected her start and shall not have the option to return to the pre-start side of the line in order to start without additional penalty.

Kett

PS - I know I'm being very hypothetical here and that you don't write the rules!  I'm just spitballing!

Kett, what I wrote was just me taking a WAG at applying the DR to what I thought you wanted based on your post. 

The DR provides a lot of options, including allowing competitors to return and correct their staring errors (that option is shown on pg 2 of the DR, in the first box).   Also as I stated, I just inserted 1 min as the OCS window to show you how it might look.  Make the window 10 sec's if you wish if that makes more sense to you.  Anything in [ ] is an option. These brackets are a little hard to pick-out and discern sometimes in the middle of the text, so read the DR again carefully and I think you'll see you have a lot of flexibility.   

Except for the new start (which the DR states must be written exactly as it is shown), the NOR language that follows are just examples as a guide.

I know that WS looked at a lot of different ways to solve this issue and this is where they landed.  It's concise and highly customizable as illustrated by the example NOR language they provided. 

Your 28.3 won't work because it effectively changes the def: start (without saying so) .. and a rule can't do that.

The crux of the issue is that start is in the new sail the course and the new finish.   If you don't start, and sail the course you can't finish.  By providing an alternate def: start, that fix automatically permutates into finish and sail the course.  Fix the root, and the trunk and limbs follow.

Ah, but the rules don't say you can't "effectively" change a definition, it only says you can't literally change one! Rule 28.2 allows you to correct any errors in sailing the course. I'm adding a new way to correct an error, not changing what the errors are. 

This is an interesting issue, but the DR is hardly a "concise" solution. It is customizable, but serves many masters. 
I'm not running a world championship or anything, so I'm good with the risk of losing a WS appeal! 

A change by any other name smells the same .. so it's not allowed.  

The DR is compact .. it only really adds (b) to start and then adds the language either allowing or disallowing returns to correct starting errors.   That's it in a nutshell.

All the other stuff in the doc are examples of NOR options and discussion of the history, need and uses.

Here's another approach to this problem...
"A boat that breaks RRS 29.1 or 30.1, and sails the course and finishes, shall receive an OCS penalty of one (1) hour added to her corrected time. This alters RRS 28.1 and A5.2."

There is still a fatal flaw, as the definition of Finish requires that you have Started.  However, it should be noted that the definition of Sailing the Course does NOT require that you Start, it only requires that you "begin to approach the starting line ... to Start ".  (I.e., not "approach the starting line and Start ")

This could all be resolved if the definition of Finish was changed from "when, after Starting" to "when, after the start".  Also, we have to accept the premise that a boat can still be scored if (clutches pearls) they don't actually Start per the definition!

I sincerely hope that WS can reduce the required verbiage in the next quad, because there is nothing "compact" about that DR mumbo-jumbo.  Part of the problem is that different events use alternative OCS scoring differently and I think the DR is making too many assumptions about what the user wants to do with it.  For example, we're fine with boats re-starting to avoid OCS, we just don't want someone to sail the whole race distance only to get tossed out for OCS after the finish.  And the whole "last [insert time] before her starting signal" foolishness is unnecessarily fussy and contrived.  For most of us, the existing rules 29.1 and 30.1 are all we need.

Kett

Kett .. re: "DR is making too many assumptions about what the user wants to do with it.  For example, we're fine with boats re-starting to avoid OCS"

The DR does not make any assumptions .. in fact the DR provides optional language of exactly what you suggest above.

You are not the first person to miss the fact that "it's in there" .. so maybe there is a fault in how the DR is presented and formatted that many folk are missing the flexibility built into it.

Below I've circled in red the appropriate option .. and crossed out in blue the language that is to be deleted.  Each optional language is separated by square brackets "[ ..]".  It's setup like a menu .. choose one of these .. choose one of these.

Fair enough.  The DR just seems like an overly complex solution to a simple problem.

It seems to me that WS made a mistake when they tied the definitions of Finish and Sailing the Course to the definition of Start.  Those three should be independent definitions tied together only in rule 28.  (Well, it's not really a problem that Finish and Sailing the Course are tied together.)  Then, all these various OCS permutations could be handled in the NoR.  Is there some good reason that the definitions were tied together that I'm not seeing?

Kett, are you familiar with the “study version” of the RRS?  Each item changed has a call-out box often with the submission # that was approved. At the back, it includes the submissions in order. 

Looking at def: finish it appears it was from Submission 139-18, proposal #4.  The “reason” for Submission 139-18 as a whole and specifically proposal 4 is there. 

Interesting!  That's quite a document.  I reviewed Submission 139-18 and there is no explanation of why "after Starting" was added to the definition Finish, so it's not very helpful in that regard.  In fact, Prop #4 includes "and Sailing the Course" in the def Finish which notably did not make it into the final rules.
I submit that the addition of "after Starting" in the def Finish has demonstrably caused more problems than it could possibly solve and was a mistake.  Using "after the start" instead would have been better.
My defense is that Start, Sail the Course and Finish are all good definitions to have, but once you tie them together (make them interdependent) they effectively become one inflexible definition.  We OAs can change rule 28, but we can't change the defs!  We have already demonstrated that there is absolutely a situation where a boat can be scored without starting (OCS scoring penalty), so why kill that option in the def Finish?  And then, why try to fix it in the def Start?!
I know I'm ranting, but the solution here seems so much simpler than the DR.

Kett .. a couple things. 

The people volunteering on the racing rules committees (both WS and MNA’s) are only human and are doing their best to fix, improve, simplify, clarify and not break anything in the process.  It’s not easy. 

I’ve written a few submissions myself (none yet adopted) but each time the process was instructive and illuminating .. trying to fix, improve, simplify, clarify and at the same time not break anything ... it’s really hard. 

This DR came from WS so you know that the WS Rules Comm knows that there is an issue. 

You might look at the DR as a stop-gap measure to provide enough time to develop an appropriate fix ... while not breaking anything  .. not an easy or trivial task especially with the Olympics just around the corner.  I think the changes would be too disruptive in that context and think the DR is a workable solution for the time being.