Initially I had a similar thought. Then I talked to the past measurer and looked through notes I had compiled on technical rulings years ago.
The measurer's response to a request for approval of a longer track in the other post summarizes a ruling made by committee on or around 6/19/2000 based on:
1. A survey of existing boats,
2. Consideration that the manufacturer changed original equipment specifications,
3. An allowance to grandfather those with the original long track, and
4. Class Rule 1.3
The survey noted that the average track was 1218 mm (48") long and 135 mm (5 1/3") below the black boom band or approximately 95.5 mm (37 1/2") above the deck.
While there does not appear to be a specification for the bottom of the spin pole track as there is for the top, this location is consistent with the mast drawings published in the current rules and all copies of the rules I have ever seen going back to 4/1/1981.
So you might disagree with the decision or believe it should be reversed. But there was reasonable justification for it. Plus an accommodation was made for those already so configured.
Compare that to overturning a settled ruling on the basis of the opinion "_if some boats came that way why should it not be allowed by all?"
