In response to 9B:
The original post that started this discussion provided some data indicating that the current rule is not working as well as hoped in certain situations, and made some suggestions that might improve it.

As to the hard deck idea, I do not understand how that will affect a pilot who is faced with a deteriorating final glide that places him near the land-out penalty altitude just outside the finish circle. He will have been above any proposed hard deck all the way. A pilot who is watching the final glide knows early on that he might not make the MFH and is looking for lift all the way. The crunch comes in the last mile or so when he has not found it and is now looking to avoid a big penalty, as described (with concrete examples) in the original post.

The original post suggested increasing the penalty zone from 200’ to 500’, thereby reducing the per foot penalty and providing more incentive to continue to a safe landing. In light of the excellent explanation from 9B about the RC’s deliberations leading to the current rule, I would appreciate his opinion as to how increasing the penalty zone from 200’ to 500’ (with a commensurate increase in the MFH) would effect the pilot’s decision in the case of a degrading final glide where the pilot can still make the field safety but is facing a land-out finish penalty. It would seem to me that decreasing the penalty for a low (but safely above the bottom of the PZ) entry would increase the motivation to continue to a safe landing rather than stopping to thermal at an unsafe altitude. Imagine a pilot facing a small penalty for a busted glide vs the same pilot facing a huge penalty; which has the stronger motivation to continue to a safe landing rather than attempting a 'hail Mary' play?

I still suggest that we increase the width of the penalty zone as above for the 2014 season. This would be a trivial change to implement, and has the virtue that its effects can be easily measured and compared to prior-year data.