• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

33 Kiss-ass


About Brass

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

8,375 profile views
  1. Archives

    Bump Is it possible to access the archives, or have they all been deleted?
  2. Compass headings on board comparison

    Don't necessarily go with this. Autohelm readout will normally be Heading from a fluxgate. Chartplotter readout will be clearly labelled HDG or COG. Presumably OP didn't mistake COG for HDG. Chartplotter and Autohelm are either driving off the same fluxgate or are equal by accident. Mag Variation/Declination is negligible so discrepancies between boat's fluxgate(s) and magnetic compasses (ship's and handheld) are likely due to ship's magnetic effect. If ship's compass has been swung "recently " rely on that, noting consistency with handheld. Garmin handheld GPS has no fluxgate and can only show COG, may be wrongly labelled HDG. This relies on direction of travel of the device, and may be inaccurate if device and boat are stationary. Garmin GPS also have settings to choose between True and Magnetic display AND choose between Auto and Manual Variation setting. If Variation was manually set to > 0 that also could introduce error in reading. Remaining devices AFAICS are also GPS based reading COG. Coincidence between Motion X and Phone Navionics and compass would be a happy if reassuring coincidence. Maybe you should go out and swing your fluxgate(s) against ship's compass.
  3. Remove DSQ boat from race?

    In theory the time limit would expire (if there is one) and the boat scored DNF. There would be no need for a hearing. It matters not what a boat is scored as the scores are all the same, unless the SI change that (and some stupidly do) and except for SCP & ZFP Indeed, and if the series is longer than a regatta, a DSQ would actually be a better score than DNC. So of some bozo who didn't start is crawling all over you on the racetrack, best you protest under rule 2 as well.
  4. Remove DSQ boat from race?

    Unfortunately a boat has to be found NOT to be racing BEFORE it can be scored DNC. No rule says this. I think what you are getting at is that a boat that is scored DNC is, nevertheless, according to the definition, racing, whether she 's there or not. I've shifted my ground on this, in the post above: I now think that the definition of racing should only be applied to boats that intend to race. Under the rules a boat is racing (according to the definition) even if it did not (or was not observed to have) come to the starting area. A boat still on the trailer IS racing until the time limit expires (if any) if it has entered the race. Ridiculous ain't it! If a rule is genuinely ridiculous (absurd), and I agree that this one is, then it must be construed so as to make it not absurd.
  5. Remove DSQ boat from race?

    A11 Scoring Abbreviations defines DNC as "Did not start; did not come to the starting area" and DNS as "Did not start (other than DNC and OCS)", which I think infers that a DNS boat did come to the starting area (although it doesn't say that explicitly, I'll grant). I think the text of the definitions of DNC and OCS, each starting 'Did not start ...' makes it clear that DNC and OCS are subsets of the set Did Not Start, and DNS covers the remainder. "Start" is a defined term. "Starting area" is not. So I guess it would be up to a PC to take evidence and decide whether a boat was in the starting area or not. If a boat comes within hail of the committee boat, checks in, participates in starting maneuvers, it seems obvious that she has come to the starting area and is therefor racing. I don't think that's quite the right logic. By coming to the starting area and participating in starting manoeuvres, she is providing evidence of her intention to race, and, then, from her preparatory signal she is racing A boat that enters the course at the windward mark having made no attempt to properly start, probably not racing. I think that pretty clearly evidences an intention not to race. Came within say 500 yards of the committee boat but not closer, within say half an hour of the starting sequence, and enters the course from that general area - gray area in my opinion. I think this envelope is clearly too big. Try 100m of the committtee vessel and within 10 minutes of the starting time and it's getting closer. I would put much weight on whether she crossed the starting line or not, or, if the race committee had pulled the starting line, did the boat sail through the place where the line had been in the direction of the first mark. Personally, I think it can be inferred that a boat that is scored DNC was never racing in that race. The words in the rules don't make that connection between DNC and racing, but it seems logical.
  6. Remove DSQ boat from race?

    In reflection, I think I got this wrong. Basic Principles - Sportsmanship and the Rules says Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules, Competitors agree to be governed by the rules in two ways: by signing an entry form saying that they agree to be bound by the rules in accordance with rule J1.2(6); and by participating or intending to participate in a race conducted under the rules in accordance with rule 3( a ). Lack of intention to participate in a particular race does not excuse a competitor who has entered an event from an obligation to obey the rules. The definition of racing says: Racing A boat is racing from her preparatory signal until she finishes and clears the finishing line and marks or retires, or until the race committee signals a general recall, postponement or abandonment. It would appear from this definition that even a boat that does not come to the starting area, or a boat that does not start, or does not finish is racing from the time of her preparatory signal forever more. As PP Sailor says I don't think it stops there. Rules must be construed so as to avoid absurdity. If it is necessary to imply a condition into the rule that is not written in it, so as to avoid absurdity, then that condition must be implied. I think that it is unavoidably necessary to imply the condition that the definition of racing apples only to a boat that is intending to race. Applying this implied condition, now makes rule 24.1 work for the case of the competitor who decides to spectate for a race or one who arrives too late to start and decides to 'practice' on the race course, which is the way, until TJSocal and I started to pick the definition of racing apart, I think we all expected it to work.
  7. Remove DSQ boat from race?

    But if they "came to the starting area" (so not scored DNC) they were racing (see the definition) from their prep signal, and they couldn't officially be scored as OCS/DNF until they retired or crossed the finish line - up until then they could have unwound their course and started properly (absent any other provisions for starting time limits in the SI). So they didn't break rule 24.1. Good point. Rule 24.1 applies between a boat that is racing and a boat that is not racing, but the boat not racing, must be subject to the rules. The rules, in general apply to a boat that is participating or intending to participate in a race (rule 3). Normally, it would be inferred that a boat that is entered in a race and is sailing about in the racing area at about the time of the start was intending to participate in the race, and, if she continues to sail about in the starting area during the starting sequence she was participating in the race, and from her preparatory signal, is racing. This inference would not hold if, for example a boat came to the racing area dressed with flags and a mixed cocktail set of passengers and crew. This would be pretty clear evidence that she did not intend to race in that race. On the other hand, a boat, rigged and crewed for racing coming to the racing area is pretty clearly intending to participate in the race, although possibly, say in the event of a breakdown before the preparatory signal, this intention may change In the case of a boat that was entered and came to the starting area, unless there was evidence to prove that she was not intending to participate in the race: the rules in general apply to that boat (rule 3), the rules of Part 2 apply to that boat (Preamble to Part 2); and that boat is racing from her preparatory signal until she until she finishes and clears the finishing line and marks or retires, or until the race committee signals a general recall, postponement or abandonment. She is racing, whether she crosses the starting line or not. Seemingly, once she is there at her preparatory signal, unless one of those things happens, she goes on racing forever. If that boat has an incident with another boat that is racing, she does NOT break rule 24.1: both boats are racing. In this case, in contrast to my view in the OCS case, I could be persuaded that she breaks rule 24.2: her ‘reasons’ for sailing on the leg of the course where the incident occurred (Case 126) cannot be that she thought she was fairly sailing in the race because she never crossed the starting line. But I think this DNS case is sufficiently similar to the OCS case and a protest committee could well find a breach of rule 2. In the case of a boat that was ostensibly not racing (with the flags and the cocktail dresses and all) if she sails on the race course and interferes with another boat that is racing, I think that a protest committee might: find that she was ‘participating’ and subject to the rules, and mistakenly conclude that she was not racing, interfered with a boat that was, and broke rule 24.1; or find that she was competing (in the series, if not necessarily in that race) and that she broke rule 2; or decide that she was a competitor that may have committed an act of misconduct and call a hearing under rule 69.
  8. Disqualification Not Excusable

    I think I've taken the discussion about this about as far is it will go in post #61 . How a protest committee would finally decide would depend on what additional facts might come out, and the inclination of the members of the committee.
  9. Disqualification Not Excusable

    If a boat is barely over, so that "she [does not realize] she is on the course side" (Case 31, or "[she} has no reason to know that she crossed the starting line early" (Case 79), than it can not be clearly established that she has breached any principles of sportsmanship and fair play. She thus does not break rule 2. Case 65 sets a none-too-extravagant standard of three to four hull lengths on the course side, to satisfy a protest committee that, under a BFD, when presumbaly she should have been paying careful attention to not going over early, the boat's helmsman knew that he had been on the course side of the starting line at the starting signal.
  10. Disqualification Not Excusable

    Mate, be fair. TJSocal's first paragraph was responding to the following: Yep that is certainly a sticky widget - it is very hard to "prove" reasons The sentence in my post (which you highlighted) was intended as a general comment, and your response has all the appearance likewise of generality. TJSocal's response, first sentance Addressed a set of what he characterised as 'reasons' which he thought were not that difficult to prove. While I disagree that what he listed were 'reasons', I think the response was logical.
  11. Safety at Sea practice

    Cute pix, but I can't help noticing that not everybody is clipped on.
  12. Disqualification Not Excusable

    Neither does 'fair sailing' appear in the rules (Definitions: rules ( a ), last three words), so why would we be considering it's meaning?
  13. Disqualification Not Excusable

    The matters listed in Case 78 Question 1 ( a ) to ( e ) are described in that paragraph, not as 'reasons' but as 'circumstances'. I'm happy to go with the words in the Case. I agree that these circumstances are objectively ascertainable by a protest committee, especially after the race is concluded and the results are available. I don't think they rely on any competitors mental state, which is the thing that is so difficult to prove. I've often wondered about this double-barreled intentionality in the various formulations of deliberately breaking a rule and gaining an advantage. The wording that I've come to prefer is 'A boat that breaks a rule with the intention of gaining an advantage breaks rule 2' covers the ground neatly. Case 78 never uses the concept 'intentionally hinder' Case 78, Question and Answer 3 address the case where a boat, while using tactics that clearly interfere with and hinder another boat's progress in the race, intentionally breaks a rule, and, of course says that this is a breach of rule 2 and possibly rule 69. I think that pretty much any breach of a Part 2 rule necessarily hinders the other boat's progress so if intentional breach can be proved, intention to hinder is necessarily inferred, even though that is not expressly required by Case 78. Bear in mind that earlier versions of Case 78 made it clear (Boat A sails back from a leading position to engage Boat B ) that A's hindering was intentional. The intentional breaking of a rule was a bit of an afterthought.
  14. Disqualification Not Excusable

    Sorry I slipped a cog in the reply below. See necessary edits OK, so the difference between Case 65 (extended to UFD) and P flag is that under BFD/UFD the boat that is in the position of 'cannot possibly not have known that she was over' has broken rule 30.4/3 and shall be disqualified, but the equivalent position under a P flag is that she has not yet broken any rule although unless she returns and starts in accordance with the rules she shall be scored OCS. I think that, just as it is logically permissible to extend the reasoning of Case 65 to cover UFD, it is also permissible to extend the reasoning to cover the P flag/OCS scenario. Consider the situation where a boat, initially clearly over early, attacks a competitor and sails her down the fleet, putting her behind numerous good competitors, where she will not be able to climb back past all of them, then peels off, returns behind the starting line and starts in accordance with the rules. Would we have any doubts that this is a breach of rule 2? Under BFD/UFD, the boat has been specifically put on notice that starting was under particular scrutiny, but I think that the absence of this under a P flag might go to the 'could not possibly not have known' issue, rather than whether, if she did know, she broke rule 2 by hindering. Certainly I think the argument above would apply all the moreso if being over early enabled the boat to be in a controlling position so as to hinder another boat (and a protest committee might presume that it did), then there is a breach of rule 2.
  15. Disqualification Not Excusable

    The difference between 126 and the situation on hand is certainly that in the situation at hand the OCS boat is fully aware that she is OCS which does change the situation I take your point. But if it can be proved that the boat's reason for sailing that course was to improperly interfere with other boats, isn't that sufficient for rule 2, so why go reaching for 24.2? That is supposing that it is ever possible for proof of 'reasons' to be adduced in a protest hearing at all.