• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

jbmooney

Members
  • Content count

    233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jbmooney

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    LIS
  • Interests
    Photography, Flying
  1. I think the rules committee was reaching for anything they could to send that "strong warning" and only by DSQ'ing both could they do that. But I think its a stretch to DSQ I for 18.3(a) because in M's absence, there would be no foul. Its a stretch to DSQ M for 18.3(b ) when she gave I room to round the mark. IMHO, I would DSQ M for 18.3(a) for causing S to sail above CH and for being stupid to put herself in the sandwich instead of not hailing for room to tack earlier or for not ducking S. In fact, If M had been really on the ball - she should have hailed "room to tack" just before I could lay the mark and thereby put I below the layline. Assuming she timed it right and didn't call for it too early or delayed her own tack - Once M tacked she would have been on the LL just below S and sitting pretty. I would be fooked and could do nothing about it. Perhaps, but couldn't Ian claim that Marge could have avoided Stan "safely without making a substantial course change" (20.1(a)) by ducking Stan, and therefor Marge was not entitled to hail for room to tack? Then it would come down to an argument about how much of a duck would have been required and if that counted as "substantial" or not. Ian would also have been entitled to "time to respond" to the hail (20.2(a)) and time to tack "as soon as possible" (20.2(d )) after Marge's hail, which might include just enough time for Ian to get to the layline, so Ian could claim that he complied with all parts of 20.2. Again it would come down to who would have been able to convince the PC that their story is better than the other one. So I think the end result would have been the same--good chance that there's no Rule 20 violation, I and M both get DSQ for breaking Rule 18. Ian's claim that Marge needn't make a substantial course change would be a matter for a PC to decide, but IMHO, the wind is blowing in Marge's favor (see Case 50 re: "reasonable apprehension of collision"), and I think it would be tough to make the case that Marge broke 20.1. If Marge's hail is legitimate, Ian has only two choices. She "shall respond either by tacking as soon as possible, or by immediately replying 'You tack' and then giving the hailing boat room to tack and avoid her." (20.2( c)) The way you've phrased your description makes it sound like Ian's entitlement to "time to respond" is in addition to time to avail herself of one of her choices in 20.2( c). I think that rewrites the rule, and think many PCs will feel the same way. Again, it would be a matter for the PC to decide whether or not the hailing boat had given room and the responding boat had complied in time, but failing to tack as soon as possible or reply "you tack" immediately and then give room would clearly break the rule. FWIW, I've been involved in hearings that DSQ'd boats that were obviously responding slowly to gain a tactical position, and I believe those decisions were correct.
  2. Thor, the answers you're after are in your local PHRF regs. Pay particular attention to JAM class regs., and see if they differ from SPI requirements (there are often regs that discourage the use of staysails and limit cutter rigs in JAM classes). Not sure what "Genoa is permanently fixed to my bowsprit" means - sounds like it may be some sort of cutter rig? As to the race officer calling you a cheat, I agree with Doug's suggestion that you discuss his behavior with the OA. It sounds like he gave you pretty unclear instructions (I'm still not sure if you got scored as a SPI boat, since you started with the JAM guys but sailed a different course, and with your SPI rating), and then got nasty about it after the fact. In fact, if he called me a cheat a second time, I'd suggest he protest me, so we could settle it properly. Good luck...
  3. Kinda tough on the line callers in the pin boat...
  4. Dark Harbor 20 - LOA 30' - S&S design (1934). Original order of 21 boats are mostly still racing on Isleboro, in Maine's Penobscot Bay, and new boats are now said to be available in glass: Dark Harbor 17 1/2 - LOA 25' - BB Crownenshield design (1908). Also known on nearby North Haven Island as a Knockabout. There are a few restored boats left, and they race occasionally on both islands, but not regularly: ...and finally, the fleet of North Haven Dinghies. A 14.5' John Alden design (1912), they have been raced continuously on the Fox Island Thorofare since first designed, and are claimed to be the oldest continuously raced one-design in North America: The competition is stiff, but the boat is a challenge to sail - mast way far forward, weird oversized rudder, very fine ended, round body and tons of rocker - twitchy little buggers!
  5. The IOC selected RIo and the sailing venue had to be somewhere near there, no? My understanding is that all of the waters around Rio are filthy. Aside from the fact that Rio's Olympic organizing committee solemnly and enthusiastically promised that Guanbara Bay would be cleaned up (a promise that obviously didn't and won't happen), do you know of any place to conduct water sports in Rio that isn't polluted? (That's not a rhetorical question, I really don't know - maybe Sepetiba Bay?) Once the games are in RIo, what alternatives did ISAF have (other than to skip it, which might have been the right thing to do, but would have been playing into the hands of the IOC, significant elements of which have been trying to get rid of sailing events for years)? There are several other possible venues just up the coast, clean water. ISAF wanted to have the background of Rio mountains in the TV coverage, all 90 seconds of it. For that, the competitors risk their health, lives even. The IOC is corrupt, but they didn't make this call. It's all on the shoulders of ISAF and the Rio organizers. I just read the thread you linked about this whole fiasco, and it was a long, sordid, and depressing read. I stand corrected, and thanks. Thanks also to Glenn McCarthy for his efforts to rally support for moving the venue, which looks like a noble, if unsuccessful effort. It's true that this won't be the first sailing competition to occur in polluted waters, but it may well be the worst, and that's a disgrace. It's very disturbing that ISAF and US Sailing appear incapable of (or disinterested in) doing anything but issue sunny platitudes about their concern for the health of the athletes and officials, while at the same time hiding the independently gathered data, taking the word of an obviously interested party (the Rio OOC) about the state of the bay, and promoting and implementing elaborate strategies for trying to protect the sailors from sailing in an unaltered open sewer. I stand by my observations about the racing rules vs. the Colregs, but I'm convinced, this stinks (pun intended, though it's not a bit funny).
  6. The IOC selected RIo and the sailing venue had to be somewhere near there, no? My understanding is that all of the waters around Rio are filthy. Aside from the fact that Rio's Olympic organizing committee solemnly and enthusiastically promised that Guanbara Bay would be cleaned up (a promise that obviously didn't and won't happen), do you know of any place to conduct water sports in Rio that isn't polluted? (That's not a rhetorical question, I really don't know - maybe Sepetiba Bay?) Once the games are in RIo, what alternatives did ISAF have (other than to skip it, which might have been the right thing to do, but would have been playing into the hands of the IOC, significant elements of which have been trying to get rid of sailing events for years)?
  7. Actually, RRS predate IRPCAS by a large margin http://www.rushall.net/images/stories/pdf/the_racing_rules_of_sailing.pdf The first RRS that were common to more than the members of one club were adopted in the UK in 1869, according to Mr. Rushall's article (the "Vanderbilt Rules" we race under now were largely adopted almost 100 years later, in 1960). Rushall's article also says that those first racing rules "drew heavily on the Collregs", which were formally enacted in the UK in 1846 (when steam vessels began to proliferate). They were followed by the Board of Trade rules in 1863, but the ones governing the behavior of sailing vessels were common practice among sailing vessels in the UK and US for many many years before either of those dates. There were differences among other nations, but within nations (and between British and American sailors), they were well understood. Internationally, Collregs were agreed at a conference in 1889, and adopted the following year. So, you're correct that the IRPCAS (adopted internationally in 1972) came much later than the IYRU's rules (first adopted internationally in 1907), but the COLREGS which preceded the IRPCAS did not, which was why I made note of the name change in my post.
  8. The main reason the RRS were written was that racing under the IRPCAS (then COLREGS) would have been impossible. We get way too close together for the IRPCAS when we race, and if we didn't, racing would be an absurd dance that nobody would enter (JimC's joking description of mark roundings and starts is incomplete and wildly optimistic), and we'd have to hold prizegiving ceremonies on the steps of Admiralty Courts, months or years after the events were over. Claiming the RRS shouldn't be different from the IRPCAS is simply demonstrating that you don't understand either rules at all. Maybe try reading both, and see if you can't tell why the differences are there? As to the sewer games, I agree it's a disgrace, but you're angry at the wrong organizations. The IOC and USOC are responsible for (respectively) selecting venues and deciding whether US athletes will compete in them, not ISAF and US Sailing. Next...
  9. There's a link to about an hour's worth of start on the SH event page. It's not live, but it's worth watching - it was a fistfight out to the Heads, and then Commanche just found another gear and left!
  10. My statement that a local PHRF event isn't a protected event under the Ted Stevens Act is a supposition, but I'm pretty confident it's not. All of what you say is true, except that my understanding is that US Sailing wants to be sure to afford the sailor full legal due process at every stage of a Rule 69 proceeding. I gather that's the reason for the requirements quoted from the US Sailing Judges Manual above, which do apply at a local Rule 69 hearing, regardless of whether the event is a protected event under the act. (The US Judges Manual isn't a rule or US prescription, but it does represent best practice, and it's a good idea to take its requirements pretty seriously in most cases in the US, and particularly so when the PC system may eventually interact with the courts.) As you say, none of that is a reason to be afraid of a Rule 69 hearing if there's good cause, and if those procedures are carefully followed (and even less reason to fear making reference to the possibility of a Rule 69 proceeding in an informal conversation with the offending sailor), but my main point was that 76.1 should be adequate to the task at hand and doesn't carry those extra requirements that a Rule 69 hearing does.
  11. I should add a qualification to the above that I alluded to but wasn't specific enough about. Because it can affect a sailor's right to compete in national or international competitions, a Rule 69 hearing imposes additional requirements under the Ted Stevens Act as well that don't apply in a normal protest hearing. The competitor should be notified in writing of the allegation and hearing, and US Sailing's Judges Manual (page 10-2) prescribes that: "The notification of the hearing to the sailor must include possible consequences. The sailor has a right to be assisted in the presentation of their case at the hearing, including having legal counsel if they desire (the sailor bears the cost of counsel). The sailor has the right to have a record of the hearing made, if desired. A good way to accomplish this would be to make a good audio recording of the hearing." A sample notification letter is included in the Judges Manual. This is why people sometimes get a lawyer for Rule 69 hearings, and why they have a right to do so that they don't in other hearings. Obviously, these are extra reasons to avoid a Rule 69 hearing unless it is necessary and you're certain the misconduct meets the requirements of Rule 69. Again, you should be on firmer ground with a properly documented rejection of entry for legitimate cause under Rule 76.1.
  12. The event isn't a world or continental championship or qualifier, so RRS 76.3 doesn't apply. Neither is it a qualifier/ladder event for any national or other higher level championship, so the special protections of the Ted Stevens Act don't apply. Protest every violation of the rules. Be sure to hear the protests properly, preferably with certified judges. Document all protests and decisions, including (if written records remain) those already concluded. Once a sufficient history has been established, have a conversation with the sailor, describing the situation and explaining that if this behavior continues, the Organizing Authority will reject his entry for cause under RRS 76.1 (due to his history, the organizing authority considers him a danger to himself and others), and may consider action under RRS 69 (he is driving away other competitors and arguably bringing the sport into disrepute). If that conversation doesn't work and he continues, reject his next entry, and provide him with the reason for rejection and supporting history in writing, as the rule (76.1) requires. A Rule 69 hearing should be avoided if possible (it is not uncommon for people to lawyer up for such hearings), but should also be unnecessary - if you reject his entry for cause that isn't arbitrary or capricious (and is demonstrably not for the other reasons in the US Sailing prescription to the rule), you should be on firm ground with 76.1.
  13. Definitely looking south, or the Marin headlands would be in the background, instead of the Presidio. I vote 'shopped.
  14. Agreed that it's entirely possible that LO will become overlapped outside 2 of her lengths from WI, and that in that case, 17 won't apply. However, if 17 does apply, must respectfully disagree that it's probable that LO's proper course is to round the mark, rather than to sail high of her direct course and bear away sharply for a windward drop at the zone. It's certainly true that LO is obligated to give room to WI to sail to the mark starting at 3 BL from the mark, if they are overlapped at that point (18.2 & Def: Mark-room). Up until the zone, though, I submit that it's entirely colorable that LO's fastest course is to sail high and bear away late, and that she would do exactly that in the absence of WI. It seems to me that if she can make that case, LO should prevail in the room. This isn't just a hypothetical belief. I used to sail regularly on several boats which used that takedown in all but the most severe weathers, regardless of the tactical situation. If we got the chance to pick off a competitor at the bottom of a run by doing it, that was an added benefit, but we did it regardless of whether anyone else was there - it made the takedown faster and set us up for the beginning of the next offwind leg better. I never took it to the room, but I was convinced then and remain so that it was perfectly legal.
  15. Only if W heads up enough to break the overlap and L becomes clear astern. If the boats remain overlapped as they both come up, L remains L and retains rights. By definition, moving clear ahead breaks the overlap. As you say, if the overlap remains unbroken, so does L's ability to luff as she pleases (limited by 15 and 16.1). Not only by 15 and 16.1, but 17 as well, in cases where L establishes overlap from clear astern. L does acquire rights to luff, but is checked by her proper course, which limits her from taking W head to wind. If L establishes the overlap from clear astern within two of her lengths of W, that's correct, and for reestablished overlaps, that was addressed in post #31, snipped above. If 17 applied at the beginning of the first overlap (and it did, in the OP), it still does while the overlap is unbroken and the boats remain on the same tack within two of L's lengths of one another. 17 says (in relevant part); "If a boat clear astern becomes overlapped within two of her hull lengths to leeward of a boat on the same tack, she shall not sail above her proper course while they remain on the same tack and overlapped within that distance, unless in doing so, she promptly sails astern of the other boat...." For 17 to apply, two conditions have to be met continuously, i.e., L and W must be a] overlapped (an overlap established by L from clear astern while the boats were less than two of L's lengths apart), and b] on the same tack. If she gybes twice, L's overlap may continue on the other tack, but she won't be on the same tack, and when she returns to the same tack as W, her overlap on the same tack will not have been established from astern. The same will be true if she somehow manages to get more than two of her lengths away from W and then closes to less than two lengths after becoming - or while remaining - overlapped. In either of those situations, 17 will no longer apply.