Ncik

Looks like the later facts found isn't relevant at all, dates don't match...

If according to the account below the boats were spaced within boat lengths before the incident unfolded, there may not have been anywhere for the cat to go, all options were bad. I haven't read the whole thread due to all the bullshit, is there a TLDR summary?

Is that the real protest facts found for this incident? Seems to be completely different to the original account of the events, that are still published on the clubs website.

Just a thought...Does anyone know how much cock-rings cost? But a serious answer...to replace very small, lightly loaded and slow running pulleys, cable ties are a functional solution. Think vang take-ups, etc. to replace these sort of things...

Two cents advice following... Round the trailing edge (10-20mm radius) and laminate around it, either before or after all the other laminate. Before fairing the rudder create a "sharp" trailing edge with a hardened epoxy (maybe colloidal silica additive) and when cured give it a rough fair with a grinder. Then fair the whole thing with microballoons or similar. The reason for this is that "sharp" trailing edges are hard to laminate and "sharp" trailing edges get bumped a chipped easily, so create a sacrificial one that is easy to repair if required and doesn't rupture the seal if chipped. "Sharp" does not mean razor sharp. A 2-5mm TE is probably sufficient for this and is less likely to get chipped.

This fact also indicates that S may've also had ROW over another vessel that could've lead S to believe holding course was not the best course of action. I still don't believe this was a cut-and-dry Case 92.

Re: rig coming down...the geometry in the incident description and subsequent animation would all be wrong, the cat wouldn't be heeled to leeward and the mono shouldn't be heeled to windward. Re: conclusions...so P has no obligation to avoid this collision (if it did have this obligation, then why wasn't it a decision of the jury)? S's only course of action is to hold course and luff, or duck, at the last second, or tack earlier? "What if" scenario...S had called for P to cross (because S wanted to be on the left hand side of the course or realised that P couldn't tack or avoid the collision by its own actions.) Everything else played out as already stated. Is this being sent to World Sailing for an appeal? Despite accepting that S's actions helped lead to the collision as explained by others, I still see this as an affront, and added confusion, to the simple rule of Port giving way to Stbd. The simple fact that there was confusion about the best course of action (as evidenced by the collision) to me indicates that P waited too late to take collision avoiding action. Has this no impact on the result?

Unless your boat is built to really tight structural margins, so much so that your deck would fail after a delamination, then any proper repair will not weaken the structure. Like others have said, injecting resin isn't a good fix. Cut the delam out, laminate the border, bond in a new core, add new outer skin.

The principle is sound...it's the practicalities that are hard to fathom. How do you decide if S was hunting or trying to avoid a collision? An alternative interpretation of the incident. S saw that P couldn't tack because of another vessel to windward and overlapped on P, so decided to duck P. P didn't notice they were closing on S and by the time they took avoiding action, it was too late and the wrong avoiding action. I still don't see how S is solely responsible when P is required to also avoid contact AND is give-way vessel. All S needs to say to the jury is "I took the action necessary to avoid the collision". Just because he kept a better lookout than P and/or is more timid than P doesn't mean Case 92 is applicable or right. How is Case 92, or the reliance on it as gospel, helping to avoid collisions? The onus of proof of hunting should be on P. Case 92 does not appear to make that clear. This isn't the only time I've seen 92 applied (imo) incorrectly. (Caveat, I don't know the specifics of this incident beyond what is written here. S may've actually been hunting, we've all seen newbs do it.) Rant over.

The way the interpretation (case 92) is now, P can actually hunt S and be found not at fault. Hardly seems fair really. Hunting is all about intent, and unless people can now read minds, I don't know how intent can be determined, particularly by a bunch of effectively amateur sleuths (the jury). All S can do is hold course and luff up at the last minute if a collision is imminent. Such actions don't seem particularly useful for avoiding a collision, which is the primary intent of the rules.

Have always hated that interpretation of the rules. So much confusion. Why isn't P held to account for not avoiding a collision also? They were by definition the give-way vessel by being on port. If S has to make any course adjustments because they deem a collision imminent then why isn't P raked over the coals. Hunting of P by S is what is meant to be avoided, but surely some incidents of S altering course are to avoid collisions.

It's simpler than that, protest an infringement, go through the process, have a drink afterwards. I learnt the hard way, leading a club championship into the last race, (probably) skimmed a buoy (it was really close and hard to tell from onboard) while leading, second place put up protest flag, crew and I weren't sure so continued, just before the finish line we were well ahead so did our turn and finished first. Formal protest ensued, we lost (turning was essentially accepting the infringement and we did the turns too late) and were DSQ. It was my first protest and a good learning experience that has stayed with me. Manage your expectations, discuss openly with everyone, including protester and protestee, exonerate yourself when required, enjoy life.

At home...it was a neighbour...there was evidence, she (50+) was arrested and admitted it...months and months of torture...the whole shebang...I was equally worried that I'd crack and do something illegal to her as she would actually following through with her threats...crazy people do crazy things... I don't doubt that there is a trail of emails and text messages (to Lia, if that evidence still exists, file it away carefully, just in-case) that could be damning evidence in court against this guy. But as in our case, is it worth it. Stalkers usually get a slap on the wrist and a restraining order.

You've clearly never been stalked...I have...a prank call a week to your wife is enough, a couple of death threats over a few months is enough, I won't go on...pull your head in fool, it may or may not be true, but that's no reason to attack the accuser. What kind of person would blatantly attack or belittle an accuser?

The RC won't do this because it will show that only some of the OCS boats get called sometimes, because identifying all of them is next to impossible with a decent fleet size. As long as it is only a few boats and you can identify some of them for OCS the race continues. If it is a large portion of the fleet then general recall, BFD or UFD as required. Imagine the arguments onshore if the video shows 4 boats over but only you were identifiable...the RC would never hear the end of it.