• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About TJSoCal

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. TJSoCal

    Eligibility to Race

    Legal definition of arbitrary & capricious: "A rule is arbitrary if it is not supported by logic or the necessary facts; a rule is capricious if it is adopted without thought or reason or is irrational". So I think you tell this competitor (in writing, if he requests it) that his entry is rejected on the basis that several of his fellow competitors have stated that they consider him to be hazardous on the race course and that they will not race if his boat is entered. It's the considered assessment of the club that accepting his entry would hurt the overall event. You've demonstrated sufficient logic, facts, thought and reason so your decision is not arbitrary or capricious and meets the standard set forth in the U.S. Sailing prescription to 76.1. If he tried to take you to court it seems like pointing to Rule 3.3-c would get the case dismissed very quickly. Plus the fact that there's no illegal discrimination and no damages.
  2. TJSoCal

    Disposal of out dated flares & shells

    Well, in the article PE linked to the flare was apparently defective but it didn't say or imply that it was expired. Given that P&W issued a recall it was almost certainly not expired. Personally I don't think I'd worry about using a flare that was relatively recently expired (maybe a year or so is probably within the manufacturer's safety margin) and I'd be more worried about them failing to ignite than exploding. Really old flares I'd turn in. If you're using flares in earnest, seems to me the slight possibility of an explosion might be somewhat low on your list of immediate problems...
  3. TJSoCal

    Kirby 30

    I sail on one regularly in Long Beach. It's not a great light air boat but it'll go. Weight placement, especially in light air, is critical. 10-15 knots and flat water is ideal - it's a fairly light boat and doesn't like chop at all. The rudder is small and it tends to load up easily so the main trimmer needs to be sensitive to that - if the main isn't eased the boat will not turn down.
  4. TJSoCal

    SoCal Race M&A

    Yeah, I agree with that. I think most of what passes for "safety" regulations these days is more about limiting liability than it is about actually preventing mishaps.
  5. TJSoCal

    SoCal Race M&A

    Yeah, but I don't know how you can justify that given the definition of Nearshore: "primarily sailed during the day, close to shore, in relatively protected waters". I think the rhumb line is too far out to be called close to shore or protected, and at 60 miles rated distance it's unlikely many entries would get in before dark. I suppose they could have waived a few more Coastal SERs that people considered too onerous. But then what happens if someone has an incident that could have been mitigated by an SER that was waived? How would NOSA explain that?
  6. TJSoCal

    Remove DSQ boat from race?

    I would think it would have to be the number of boats entered in the series at the time of the race being scored. Otherwise you'd have to go back and adjust scores for previous races as new boats entered the series.
  7. TJSoCal

    Remove DSQ boat from race?

    Fair enough, but by the time a protest is heard the race is over and DNC boats have been scored as such. This is starting to take on the flavor of the "can something be an obstruction if it's 10 miles away" discussion...
  8. TJSoCal

    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). "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. A boat that enters the course at the windward mark having made no attempt to properly start, probably not racing. 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. Personally, I think it can be inferred that a boat that is scored DNC was never racing in that race.
  9. TJSoCal

    Remove DSQ boat from race?

    True, but there's a spot on the form for "rules alleged to have been broken". I suppose you could leave that blank and leave it up to the PC to figure out which if any rules were broken from your description but that seems like a pretty lazy protest. And I know that the PC can decide rules were broken that were not alleged by the protestor.
  10. TJSoCal

    Remove DSQ boat from race?

    24.2 in that situation was covered in another thread recently and I think the Brass answer was that there was a case (ETA: Case 126) that said that would not have been a violation. Although in the case the OCS boat wasn't aware that she was OCS - so in this case where the OCS boat knew it I suppose a PC might find that 24.2 applied. At least as Fan described it, it sounds to me like the PC erred in saying the boat was not racing. I'd still like to hear from Fan what rule was alleged to have been broken on the protest form as the basis for their protest.
  11. TJSoCal

    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.
  12. TJSoCal

    Remove DSQ boat from race?

    What rule do you feel they broke? Did you cite one on the protest form? And, did the sailing instructions specify that any DSQ was not excludable?
  13. TJSoCal

    Disqualification Not Excusable

    And I agree with Brass, I was a little lazy with language and what I called "reasons" in the case cited are more properly characterized as "circumstances". As well as the principal that a protest hearing should focus on the latter and not the former.
  14. TJSoCal

    Disqualification Not Excusable

    You quoted me and said that I was talking "in the context of rule 24.1/24.2" My response was that in the passage you quoted I was not. I'm sorry if I gave offense, that certainly wasn't my intent.
  15. TJSoCal

    Disqualification Not Excusable

    I take your point and really do appreciate your emphasis on the text of the rules, but (with respect) don't you think that's a bit overly pedantic?