Brass

Members
  • Content Count

    2,636
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

111 F'n Saint

2 Followers

About Brass

  • Rank
    Super Anarchist

Recent Profile Visitors

8,855 profile views
  1. Brass

    Australian Sailing

    https://www.sailingresources.org.au/class-assoc/sail-numbers/
  2. Brass

    Should WS consider dropping RRS 17?

    My proposition is that some sailors knowing that there is some sort of a rule about an 'overtaking' leeward boat not luffing may have a beneficial effect in 'damping down' the incidence of ill-considered aggression. Balance this possibility against reasons for deleting the rule: it's ill-understood and in effect is a 'social distancing' measure, to a degree relying on [possibly incorrect] perceptions to have a beneficial effect; it's difficult to apply; Rule 16.1 does all the work that's strictly necessary.
  3. Brass

    Should WS consider dropping RRS 17?

    Isn't that the nub of this discussion? Rule 17 is arguably superfluous, it just gums up the works. And gumming up the works and deterring boats with poor understanding of rules and tactics from pursuing self-defeating luffs is, likewise, arguably, a good thing.
  4. Brass

    Should WS consider dropping RRS 17?

    But why would you do that in a fleet race? It would just guarantee you second last. Because: He's a dope. He 'enjoys the cut and thrust of close competition'. The Boys Big Book didn't explain that bit.
  5. Brass

    Should WS consider dropping RRS 17?

    We've certainly agreed on that over the years I'll argue it. Claims that the rules are 'complicated' or 'difficult to understand' are usually post-hoc rationalisations for breaking them. Sure there are some competitors who haven't read the rules, of those, some have gained sufficient understanding from what they have been told or seen to stay out of trouble, some haven't. Problems, such as they are, I suggest are caused by complicated interactions between rules deliberately contrived by competitors to gain advantage, that is 'rules chess'. Consider the double gybe under rule 17 for example. I think most of us agree that that's part of the game and an attractive part at that. Maybe, but ISTM that rule 17 has a good place in mixed fleet racing I think the main reason they canned it in MR was that you could have a situation where a boat became overlapped to leeward then it was Y Flag Green Flag Y Flag Green Flag Y Flag Green Flag ... all the way down the leg as the windward boat hopefully tried to convince the umpires that leeward was above proper course, and that, with matched one design boats, and just two of them, it wasn't worth the trouble. Mixed fleet racing is different. So inside overlapped starboard tacker, with the red mist on, can sail the outside boat to Antarctica before gybing, just because she can? No thanks. I'm a little sympathetic with Astro's arguments here. While in a 'pure' sense it may not be necessary, having rule 17 there serves as an additional measure to 'hose down' people engaging in pointless luffing duels. I don't see it like that. I think if it wasn't for rule 17, you would have some dope, with an ill-remembered bit of the Boys Big Book of Yacht Racing Tactics 1985, about 'luffing rights' will follow W up and keep sticking it to them until they both arrived in Algiers without a passport. See my comment above. I'd also remark that Match Racers usually do understand tactics and won't muck around.
  6. Brass

    Should WS consider dropping RRS 17?

    Help us out here. What do you think the reason is?
  7. Brass

    Should WS consider dropping RRS 17?

    Rule 17 in its entirety is deleted for match racing. Here is the reasoning https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/23215RacingRulesofSailingNewRuleC2.6-[19350].pdf
  8. Brass

    Beer can racing - When to protest or not

    I don't know whether you guys live in some sort of separate and not-very-parallel universe, populated by incompetent and biased race officials, but none of this matches up with my experience. Maybe you are just adopting the SA journalistic standard of making extravagant allegations to stir up controversy. It just seems like human nature to me. The horrifying part is when sailors deliberately lie to Protest Committees, thankfully this is very rare. Not unknown, unfortunately. Amen to that. When a protest committee starts getting worried about a party or witness not telling 'the truth' they will do well to re-read Appendix M Preamble, which says (emphasis added) In a protest or redress hearing, the protest committee should weigh all testimony with equal care; should recognize that honest testimony can vary, and even be in conflict, as a result of different observations and recollections; OTOH it is quite natural for a skipper to say "Yes he had rights over me but we weren't that close" etc etc. And the protest committee deals with this by finding facts about the specific distance. Most Protest Committees want to avoid being "the bad guy" and giving DSQs. Yet again, this just doesn't tally with my experience. In my experience protest committee members nearly always show a fair minded commitment to determining whether a rule has been broken and if so, deciding an appropriate penalty. Obviously, a judge that fails to identify and penalise a rule breach that has occurred is a 'bad guy' in the eyes of the protesting boat. The rules should be crystal clear, or at least as much so as possible, and I think that there has been good progress on this in the last 50 years. Unfortunately we now have a culture of the rules being changed all the time, The rules don't get changed 'all the time'. The rules have been changed, updated and improved every four years since 1961, in a regular, systematic way. including changing rules to suit professional racers tastes & habits because "that's how we play the game now" which IMHO is ridiculous. It's inevitable that in a large scale change process there will be some wavering about to the winds of fads and fashions. I can't deny that some rule changes are better or worse than others, like the 2017 change to rule 18.3 and the inane umpired medal race, but I don't think that it is fair to lay this at the door of 'professional racers'. The marketing department has much to answer for, and sometimes, well-meaning initiatives have unintended consequences. Such is life. It also leads to a body of rules that assumes professional on-water judges & umpires, In genera., nonsense. True it is that we have allowed Match Racing and Team Racing to evolve in a way that those games can't be played without umpires, but there is nothing in the Fleet Racing rules that needs on-water umpiring (OK, rule 42, but that's a wicked problem). which very few of us will ever see. But that's a rant for a different time, sorry. If by 'professional' you mean paid and making a living out of it, there are very very few race officials, world wide that do that. If you mean 'highly competent', there are any number of unpaid race officials that are dedicated to, and very good at their volunteer part time job. If, somehow or other, you are experiencing a shortage of competent race officials, then I'd have to ask, what is your club and region doing about it? It's up to us to enforce the rules, and that includes making allowance for human nature IMHO
  9. Brass

    Beer can racing - When to protest or not

    This horrifies me. It is certainly not my experience, not even close. My experience is that nearly all protest committees actually consist of fair minded sailors trying their best to apply the rules If it is as Doug says, then the Race Committees and Organising Authorities that appoint these protest committees have a lot to answer for.
  10. Brass

    Beer can racing - When to protest or not

    Bit short-sighted. The 1961-1992 Rules always contained Rule 32.1 Avoiding Collision Serious Damage, and later also Rule 33 Contact Between Yachts, which evolved into the infamous protest or be disqualified provision.
  11. Brass

    Australian Sailing

    https://aabboating.com/vhf/?mc_cid=a1c3d37eb6&mc_eid=b95ad12a55
  12. Brass

    Beer can racing - When to protest or not

    I disagree with this. Hold back on delivering a written protest, by all means, but don't deny yourself the opportunity of doing so by failing to hail 'protest' and displaying the red flag. You can't really expect a boat to take a rule 44 penalty if you don't let them know, by hailing and flagging, that you think they broke a rule. I firmly believe that strightforward hails of 'protest' and red flags will quite substantially improve rules compliance, without necessarily increasing the number of protest hearings.
  13. Brass

    Beer can racing - When to protest or not

    Take another look at Perry's diagram: there was contact between W and the RC Vessel AND contact between W and L. L had no constraints to leeward so was reasonably able to avoid contact, so broke rule 14. Contact with the RC Vessel was a breach of rule 31, not of rule 14.
  14. Brass

    Beer can racing - When to protest or not

    And this is the problem every time this issue comes up. The keep clear and the RoW boat often have different understanding of what it means to 'drive' someone into the committee boat. Which is a really good reason why, when discussing the rules it is best to use the language of the rules, not some slang, or stuff that sounds 'rulesy' but is not.
  15. Brass

    Beer can racing - When to protest or not

    Granted, the appropriate thing to do with a barger is to give room and protest. Why? Why should a a leeward right of way boat, who at her last change of course gave a windward boat room to tack away or otherwise avoid the RC vessel, and is complying with all relevant rules, take any action to help the windward boat get out of a situation that the windward boat's misjudgement or boat handling mishap has put her in? However - if you're on the committee boat you have no authority to DSQ a boat without a hearing. And if a boat with rights maintains her course and "forces" a barger into contact with the committee boat I don't think there's a rule that would allow a PC to penalize her. Irish River was talking about being on the Protest Committee, not Race Committee, so that supposes that there is a hearing. But you're right: rule 64.1 requires that a protest committee has to decide that a boat has broken a rule, a real live rule, as defined in the RRS, before it can penalise a boat, and I agree that there's no rule that requires a leeward boat that has given room as required by rule 16.1 and is thereafter sailing a steady course to give any further room. I am by no means sure what is meant by 'force a collision', but a collision between a boat racing and a race committee vessel is not a breach of rule 14. A Race Commitee Vessel is not a 'boat' according to the definition in the rules which reads: Boat A sailboat and the crew on board.