Dog Watch

Members
  • Content count

    1,459
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Whiner

About Dog Watch

  • Rank
    Super Anarchist

Recent Profile Visitors

5,277 profile views
  1. Dog Watch

    Nexus NX systems

    I'm no expert at all... Seems to me like this is a configuration issue, presuming everything is wired in correctly. - - - normally indicates 'no-data'. When you say 'tocked the ticks', I'm guessing this is in the Tools> Settings>NX2 Server Configuration page in the race software? How much have you been into the Tools>Configure page? I seem to remember it took me some fiddling to get all the sources correctly .http://www.champagnelady.se/II/?wpfb_dl=12I don't know if you've seen this, but if not, it could help. Particularly, the second half of Note3. As for removing your compass, if you are racing, then the weight saving might be a consideration. If not, then why not simply have the redundancy of two compasses? DW
  2. Dog Watch

    Nexus NX systems

    Does anyone know if I can run the calibration software on Windows 10?
  3. Dog Watch

    Sydney to Hobart 2017

    Sets the scene that's all.
  4. Dog Watch

    Sydney to Hobart 2017

    http://bfy.tw/FndW
  5. Dog Watch

    Part 2 violations in the Sydney-Hobart

    http://bfy.tw/Fn1T
  6. Dog Watch

    Sydney to Hobart 2017

    JS is correct. Middle sentence of Rule 13 applies. Rule 10 did not apply. 13 WHILE TACKING After a boat passes head to wind, she shall keep clear of other boats until she is on a close-hauled course. During that time rules 10, 11 and 12 do not apply. If two boats are subject to this rule at the same time, the one on the other’s port side or the one astern shall keep clear.
  7. Dog Watch

    Sydney to Hobart 2017

    There really are some stupid subjective, ingnorantly written or emotionally charged comments here. OK -Time to put this to bed... 1. The incident - A poorly executed leebow? Hesitation during a cross? Hesitation in a slam dunk? Poor on board comms between the after guard? Who knows? Who cares? We've all been there. People make mistakes. Get over it. 2 The rules - Rule 13, simple. Only Rules 13, 14 and rule 16.1 are considered. The jury concluded that LDVC did not change course, so 16.1 can be ruled out. LDVC acted to avoid contact, and there was no collision, so rule 14 out.They concluded that LDVC had to take action to avoid while WOXI was tacking. That's all. No point in discussing rule 10 now. That expired when WOXI passed HTW. No point in discussing rule 15. That only occurs after WOXI reached close-hauled. No point in discussing 16.2. At no time was WOXI sailing to pass astern of LDVC. 3. Not taking a penalty - That is the right of any boat. If they believe that they did not break a rule, or were not sure because it was close (and judging by this discussion it was), then they have a right to take their chances in the protest room. This does not represent poor sportsmanship or even foolishness. It is in the rules for them to do. Both parties (including WOXI agree that it was close, with WOXI crew proposing a 50/50 situation). If they knew they had broken a rule, then yes, we could question sportsmanship. In this case, no. Move along. In reflection, they may have misjudged how close it was, and kick themselves for that. We may all have acted differently. It probably was a poor risk/reward judgement. However, at the time, her decision to continue was justified and within the rules and principals of sportsmanship, since they thought they had not broken a rule, or were not convinced enough to take a penalty at the time. Her right to make that call. 4 The Protest - Nothing wrong with LDVC's decision to take this to the room. It is a fundimental principal of all competitors to enforce the rules. That's all she did. Not doing that is possibly more destructive to the sport. Furthermore, if you believe in the rules and that they are a part of the sport, then you should fully support her decision to go ahead (for whatever motives - win, principals, morals, sponsor pressure, etc...) with the protest. Both boats agreed to be bound by the rules; those rules include the protest and penalty procedure. 5. The Time Penalty - Of course it needs to be more than 5 minutes in order to be a penalty! Duh! The penalty must be in line with the penalty system of the event. In the SIs for this event specify penalties ranging from 5 minutes minimum to DSQ. In between those extremes are 20% for not submitting a declaration, 30% for an offshore breach of Part 2 and OCS, 40% as maximum time penalty, and then DSQ for the most heinous of crimes. It stands to reason that the time penalty for an inshore breach of Part 2 should be somewhere between not submitting a declaration on time, and the offshore Part 2. So 20-30% of position in her division. That's what the jury did. Her time penalty worsened her IRC Div 0 position by about 20-30% of all the IRC Div 0 boats. Discretionary Penalties (DPs) are becoming more popular. There is even a new scoring code for it. The principal suggests that not all rule breaches are the same. That seems sensible. Good practice is still being developed. If DP is to be used, Race Organisers and Juries need to have a clear penalty structure for DPs, which is fair and well known. Many events already have one, which they publish to competitors. In this S2H, the SIs were a little ambiguous. Maybe more structure and guidance could be given on the penalty system. 6. Winning in the room - WTF? No one has won in the room. The incident took place on the water in this case. Those who think that this is sea-lawyering or 'winning in the room' are normally the ones who either don't know all the rules or don't fully respect the rules. If they did, they would know that in this sport, there is no way to resolve some on-the-water conflicts, other than going to the room. They would know that the rules are designed to give competitors the chance to exonerate OR to have the decision reached by an independent panel. They would know that not enforcing the rules (including the 'Oh, forget about it!' approach) is not good for the sport. 7. WOXI's Elapsed Time - Her RACE Elapsed Time is the time she took in this 'event/race/competition'. In this race it was 01:09:15:24. That is 33 minutes behind LDVC. There is NO OTHER elapsed time. End Of. 8. Race Record - Read it carefully...the 'RACE' record. That is a record set during an edition of Sydney to Hobart Race. The race record is only held by a boat who has sailed the course correctly, and complied with the rules or taken penalties under the rules for any breaches made during the race. WOXI did not break any race record this year. Unlucky. LDVC did. 9. 'The Fastest Crossing Between Sydney and Hobart' - If someone wants to go and make a seperate unrelated trophy for 'The Fastest Crossing Between Sydney and Hobart', then go ahead and give it to WOXI! Well done her. See how long it lasts though, before people abuse that trophy's lack of moderation. The organised S2H race event is the moderator of that record for a reason. It sets bounds within we can be comfortable that a boat has acheived that feat fairly and measurably. In which case WOXI did not gain any known record. 10. The messages this sends to kids and non-sailors - That sailing is a complex sport. That even the best make mistakes. That if you break a rule you may (and should) be penalised. That even long races can be so close that a single penalty can make the difference between winning and losing. 11. WOXI attitude after the decision? - Whatever! Of course they will be disappointed! They thought they were right! Someone always goes away dissatisfied after a hearing. Moral win? Fine; let them enjoy the fact that they sailed very fast, if that is what they want to measure their success by. Let's face it, they did sail fast and well. Just from the 'race' point of view they did not beat LDVC (see #7). Nothing in that interview suggested WOXI were not accepting the decision. That's about it. Well done to LDVC. Well done to Ichi Ban and all the others who won divisions, got on the podium or achieved a personal best.
  8. Dog Watch

    scallywags cause uproar at rhkyc

    Hey! That's a hilarious breach of procedure in my opinion! I don't think the rules allow them to simply 'cancel' the hearing like that, based just on a retirement!!! In the statement from the committee, it is stated that a date for the hearing was set. This implies that the committee had found from the investigation that there were grounds for a hearing. So the committee has acted under 69.2(e). 69.2(e) If the protest committee decides to call a hearing, it shall promptly inform the person in writing of the alleged breach and of the time and place of the hearing and follow the procedures in rules 63.2, 63.3(a), 63.4 and 63.6 Once arriving at the decision to hold a hearing, and setting the date, the committee is required to 'follow the procedures in the rules 63.x'. In otherwords, the hearing should go ahead! Particularly, 63.6 requires evidence to be taken. 63.6 Taking Evidence and Finding Facts The protest committee shall take the evidence of the parties present at the hearing and of their witnesses and other evidence it considers necessary. Nowhere in rule 69, does it appear that the committee may rescind a decision to hold a hearing! (The rules are written presumably like this to stop any kind of 'bullying or persuasion' of the protest committee to drop the hearing after it becomes clear that there could be trouble. Normally if that happens, the misconduct has already occurred. Also, to make it impossible to simply 'get away with it' by retiring.) In other words, once the decision to go to hearing has been made, it seems to me the hearing must go ahead! Conversely, a boat has up until the committee acts under 69.2(e) to 'fess up and take the penalty. After that, its too late. ----------------------------------- Retiring from a race, doesn't and shouldn't fix a 'misconduct'. You can't call someone a C*** and then say, "OK...I'll retire are we quits now?" Likewise, you can't refuse to take a penalty when you learn you've broken a rule (that 'refusal' being the misconduct), and then when it suits, take a penalty. You still have to answer to the time when you refused to take the penalty in the first place. I'm not sure what's going on over there in the Far East, but it looks as though there was an ulterior motive for the retirement, and also someone has managed to persuade (let's hope not bullied) the protest committee to (unwittingly?) step out of procedure and drop everything! Maybe time for the MNA to wade in. Fascinating....
  9. Dog Watch

    scallywags cause uproar at rhkyc

    Even I can get a GPS track from my computer and very quickly know whether I took a mark to left or right. Who knows why it took them 3 weeks.
  10. Dog Watch

    scallywags cause uproar at rhkyc

    No doubt they made a mistake. No doubt when they signed the form, they beloved they had sailed the correct course. No doubt too, when they learned of the protest, they very quickly knew they had made a mistake. At that point, shouldn't a new declaration have been submitted?
  11. Dog Watch

    scallywags cause uproar at rhkyc

    I agree. The more I think about it, it smells. The timing is just too coincidental...a hearing next Monday.. there is a reason for the retirement at this point in time. I sincerely hope they don't get to 'dodge' a hearing by their retirement. That would not be right. Time to retire was when they learned that they may have broken a rule. Page 1 of the rule book..."A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire." The key word here being 'promptly'. The race result is incidental to the possible breach of that fundamental principal of sportsmanship. The RET doesn't make it all better. Well, let's see if the hearing goes ahead. It would be curious if it did not. This also intrigues me. How were they meant to inform Scallywag if they had left the area? Hmmm...
  12. Dog Watch

    scallywags cause uproar at rhkyc

    Wow. What does that mean for the hearing? Seems to me an easy way put it all to bed.. Too easy... Why is the focus on the declaration? At some point Scallywag must have known.. Maybe even after the first hearing? Surely the obligation to 'take a penalty when you learn you've broken a rule extends indefinitely... Or at least while the race in question is being talked about... Why then so long to retire? Clearly a great deal of time and effort has been put into this so far.. is that just the past now? Something doesn't seem to be right.
  13. Dog Watch

    Barging question

    Not sure I agree. The communication is different but still there. Maybe a bit more mature, and with a bit more understanding. I encourage 'non - required' comms. Approaching a mark, some quiet discussion well in advance often gets everyone around more orderly. Warning a boat of rights you may need to use in the future..., waving a boat through early (that you won't be using your rights), swinging your arm to signal 'no overlap'... These all help. I think this is the difference. Dw
  14. Dog Watch

    scallywags cause uproar at rhkyc

    What was the result of all this?