shanghaisailor

Members
  • Content Count

    1,735
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

698 F'n Saint

1 Follower

About shanghaisailor

  • Rank
    Super Anarchist
  • Birthday 09/17/1955

Profile Information

  • Location
    Shanghai, China
  • Interests
    Sailing in all its forms & most other watersports

Recent Profile Visitors

6,260 profile views
  1. shanghaisailor

    port!

    Well what do you expect - he was a coach ;-) SS
  2. shanghaisailor

    port!

    The original Charity Regatta in Shanghai over 10years ago had all boats on the same course. The SI's had a special condition in them. "Optimists had right of way, even when they are on port tack." The kids thought it was awesome being in amongst the bigger boats and the grown ups thought it was fun too and Autistic kids in Shanghai benefitted enormously from the sailing community PULLING TOGETHER for their benefit. I also remember from my days sailing on the Forth (Scotland) there existed the "Forth Yacht Clubs Association" where the next season's events were coordinated to avoid scheduling conflicts and if I remember correctly there were 22 clubs in the association and things got sorted. Surprised that a sailing area like Florida doesn't have a similar thing. That would have avoided all of the above. As a sport we should be working together not bitching at each other. As I said earlier, case dismissed and coach boats should remember they are not umpires, in fact they shouldn't even have been on the race course if the SI's had been written properly.
  3. shanghaisailor

    port!

    I hope people are starting to see (KC 375 for one) the sorts of challenges a good jury has when an incident - or even a non incident - is reported to them. Different perspectives? , bad language and who used it - for example did anyone see the lip sync to the 'f' word on the big boat or was it actually a coach (remember they are subject to the rules as well since 01/01/2017) Did any Optimist have to take avoiding action? They may be small but they have no greater rights than any other boat. I would hope the big boat being on port and capable of inflicting severe damage to boats &/or sailors smaller and less experienced than they are, are being careful. In my view (from just one telling photograph) this is evidenced by the helm being on the lee side when the windward side would be better/faster if there were no other boats around PLUS the skipper has positioned a crew member standing on the weather side deck for a better view ahead. CASE DISMISSED! My biggest question would be (and I may be repeating myself) is why did the Optimist race management team set their course so close to what was a permanently paid racing mark from another club/race.
  4. shanghaisailor

    port!

    Hi Mad As I said trouble with a long telephoto lens. However, as Rawhide said the kids don't appear to be looking back in panic. Also if you look at the space between the bow of the big boat and the Oppie you will see what appears to be two wave crests. If they are then the big boat was not as near as the photo initially suggests. As I said why a good jury tends to disregard photos and video as evidence, it is very hard to judge the foreshortening effect.
  5. shanghaisailor

    port!

    clickbait perhaps but the first click, that of the camera shutter produced a dramatic shot. It is good to see the SA lynch mob mentality is still alive and well. The thread so far reminds me of a B movie western with half the town shouting hang 'em high with just the preacher and drug store owner trying to calm things down. A good jury would say of that shot 'inconclusive, what else you got?' Someone up-thread said they were heading to a mark out of shot to the right. So they were racing too. Were they aware of their situation being on port tack? Well the helm is to leeward, not usual and there is a crew member standing up on the port sidedeck keeping a look forward and to windward, again standing not normal (and not fast) . It does appear they knew what they were doing and taking care threading their way through. Then who plonked down a dinghy course round or close to a usual laid course turning mark. The 'squad' type official often seem to think they own the water. The bad language? Does anyone know for sure it came from the big boat or was it a coach (they are the "professionals" after all, what would a mere amateur know) or was it an Oppie Parent rather than a coach, they can be pretty aggressive too you know. We all need to know that none of us own the water, none of have an exclusive lease on a particular piece of the sea. I have taken many photos that, through a 500mm lens, looks scarily close due to the warped perspective only to realise when I take the camera away from my face that they were not so close after all. The human eye has a perspective of around 50mm by the way which is why 35mm SLR cameras used to be sold with a "Standard Lens" of that focal length. Just stirring the pot :-) SS
  6. shanghaisailor

    port!

    The danger of a long telephoto lens, A very good example of why most good juris are dubious about long range photo evidence.
  7. shanghaisailor

    Fastnet 2019

    Ask anyone who was there in 1979 if this is just a coastal race. Luckiest escape I ever had in all my sailing career.
  8. You are so funny you should do standup. Or are you just thick? You are certainly not of this century. Surprised you've got a computer So by your "logic" the 100's of digital edition sailing magazines I have purchased & downloaded, my RYA eBooks (nice discount as a member by the way). Bugger me, even my Navionics Charts. You mean I've paid good money and I don't own any of them? God, I've been royally ripped off. Just to reassure you though rant, sorry frant, I do have a fair collection of rules books some going all the way back to the days of mast abeam. Don't bother responding for as soon as I post this I will be putting you on ignore - go bother someone else with your drivel.
  9. Ha ha ha, I laughed so much I nearly fell off my chair. Like I mentioned in an earlier post wisdom is more often about knowing what you don't know. Ownership in no way implies a purchase, not in law, not in common usage. You are right however that the "Blue Book", if downloaded is free. I have indeed 'downloaded' a copy of the "Blue Book". That copy is on my computer and my iPad. I own that copy in the "normal usage of the term "own a copy". The fact that someone has not paid for an article in no ways denies ownership - plonker! FFS your comment has got to be one of the thinnest arguments and weakest responses I can remember seeing on this or any other forum. Not having a go about the ColRegs reference (Not COLREGS by the way, it is not an acronym) just that the requirement for AIS has, in this instance, absolutely nothing to do with IRPCAS, it is governed by the SIs of the event which quite sensibly follow the World Sailing Offshore Special Regulations on this matter. I do agree with you however that had the protest been deemed valid it would have been quite a challenging decision to make but there were quite a few avenues of evidence that could have been followed but the WOXI skipper did little to strengthen their case by changing his story and if the disappearing WOXI 'blip' could been seen by people on this forum I am sure others closer to the action would also have seen that disappearance. Please note however that this would in no way imply that WOXI deliberately turned their AIS off, just that it wasn't transmitting as required by the RSHYC 2018 SIs. In their defence they(WOXI) would only need one witness boat to state they saw WOXI on their AIS and they would be exonerated. What I would repeat from an earlier post is that had WOXI felt/known/learned that their AIS was not transmitting after they signed their declaration and then went back to request an amendment to that declaration then the headlines would likely read "Honest boat gives up line honours prize due to equipment malfunction" - if indeed it wasn't transmitting - and WOXI would then be remembered down into folklore and legend as a wonderful example of how sport (not just sailing) should be played instead of being involved in a contentious situation for the second year running All theory though except that, having once worked with Russell Green I know that as Jury Chairman his team would have worked hard to reach their correct decision. BTW I also have worked multiple times with the chairman from last year (strange he wasn't invited back this year after 8 years of service) and that incident gave us yet another pile of forum pages of discussion, In fact, come to think of it the same crowd went out of their way to defend WOXI as have done this time and last year's incident was crystal clear. Your comment that "The IJ has handed WOXI a poisoned chalice" is completely erroneous. If the RC had formulated their protest in such a way that it was valid then the PC/IJ would have had an opportunity to hear the case. In actual fact the IJ/PC acted 100% within and in compliance with the RRS with regard to validity of a protest - they had no option but to disallow - read your rule book. In reality it was the RC who slipped the poison into the cup if anyone. Anyway, that is my last word on the subject, I have a match race event to prepare for this weekend (umpire) so no more time but thanks for the laugh. SS
  10. Ha ha - you get worse. The "Blue Book" as you call it is the "Australian Sailing Racing Rules of Sailing". In the current version (I own a copy) it clearly states that "Other words and terms are used in the ordinarily understood in nautical or general use". The Sailing Instructions (SIs) are part of the rules of the event and have nothing to do with IRPCAS (what you call the ColRegs). The IRPCAS requirements for AIS DO NOT apply to a sailing yacht of the weight of Wild Oats XI. That sentence in the introduction of the "Blue Book" applies across all elements of the rules of our sport unless,like ALL aspects of the RRS, is specifically countermanded by a part of the NoR or SIs -you may have seen in some things like "This replaces Rule such and such. The 2018 RSHYR NoR and SIs have no such entry that even suggests the normal usage understanding of words is incorrect. Cutting a long story short SHALL means SHALL but of course,as an experienced rules 'person' you would know that anyway. You mention in an earlier post that being old doesn't mean being wise. It is important (perhaps also wise) to understand that true wisdom doesn't come from what you know. IN fact true wisdom comes from knowing what you don't know. (Think about it). Your comment about an IJ coming up with a guilty verdict is irrelevant in this case as there was no guilt (or innocence) decided in the protest room as the protest was deemed invalid. Not the judges fault but the way in which the protest was prepared. Nobody has won. Wild Oats has not been proven guilty(f they were). They have not had the opportunity to prove their innocence (if they were) The reputation of the race and our sport has been besmirched. The Overall Victory of Alive has been largely buried which is not in the least bit fair. Hers was a rare Hobart based boat's victory. The achievements of the ladies on Wild Oats X, newsworthy in itself has barely had a mention. On a much brighter note for our sport, the 2019 Fastnet Race entry has opened and closed. It took a mere 4 minutes and 37 seconds to fill the 340 places available in the Royal Ocean Racing Club's biennial event. Just sayin' SS Edit: PS there are another 100 boats on the wait list by the way.
  11. OK so I quoted from a GLOBAL standard instead of an AUSTRALIAN variant. I hold my hand up on that one. I bow to your vast experience "co-opted onto protest committees" wow, that probably puts you alongside probably half the club sailors in the world over the years. Here's a number for you. It is the only really relevant number in this discussion. Sailing Instructions 11.4 If you are so knowledgeable about the rules you will recognise the importance of the word "SHALL" in the instruction. Anyway that's the personal 'pop' out of the way and no malice intended, I would still down a pint with you if we met -discussion is healthy. The thing I find hard to believe about this whole affair is that the Race Committee clearly (according to them) had not watched any news REPORTS by news REPORTERS of what Blackjack stated. I find it strange (not unbelievable but strange) that an RC showed no interest in what the media were REPORTING from the dock (about the race they were the RC of) in Hobart and didn't watch, listen to or read any of the media REPORTS about claims over AIS being on, off, faulty, mandatory (or not) etc. I doubt if many of the REPORTERS filing their REPORTS had any conflict of interest regarding what they were REPORTING. For the record, I have no conflict of interest over the whole issue, I just find it strange that a party to the whole event has provided almost as many variants to the actual events as the Crown Prince of Saudi. Saddest part of the whole thing for me is the REAL winner of the event, Alive who picked up the Tatersall Cup has almost been forgotten in the morass of writings about a on/off/faulty piece of electronics let alone the amazing performance of the all female team on Wild Oats Ten who beat 86 teams of (mainly) Aussie blokes to the second spot of the IRC Overall podium. That's the real race. SS
  12. Special rega specifically state the equipment required to ensure minimum power loss- he must be a dinghy sailor Jack
  13. Especially as neither the OA or the RC made AIS mandatory. The WS OSR state for a Cat 1 race an AIS “Transponder” must be used. By definition a transponder sends & recieves
  14. I lost my respect for him as a journo a LONG time ago. He has written so much that is way off the mark or poorly informed. Sure I get it wrong sometimes too but much less frequently. Sadly he is not the only sail-world writer that pens from entirely self interest or ignorance but that's another story.