• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Jah

Members
  • Content count

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jah

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  1. Irma

    RKoch: Any updated news on the current storm surge height warning for St. Pete? It looks like the wind will be dying as the sun goes down and the storm keeps moving north, but the tide is coming in.
  2. The Jobson Retort

    Canal: You like to quote from the rules and quote Mr. Rose's articles regarding the rules. Read my post, post #30, in the "A Rule 19 and/or 20 question - from the Jobson Debacle" thread.
  3. There is no inability to hail, and there is no need to mind read. Leeward just needs to give enough room as defined, end of. Whether windward gybes or not is pretty much irrelevant. Windward can't sail a hot angle post gybe, they can only sail within the room required to clear the obstruction, and the amount of room required will normally be obvious. If its not obvious then a hail to communicate that is permitted, it just doesn't have a formal meaning in the rules. The rules do seem to expect you to have a basic knowledge of the characteristics of the other boats you are racing against. If you're not sure how much room you need to give, well, you would be well advised to err on the generous side. "Room: The space a boat needs in the existing conditions" That could mean a short crew or all sorts of things. Your vessel must stay clear of the hailing vessel. If you see the other boat setting up to gybe you best do the same. Here is Mr. Rose on the subject..... "whenever a boat to leeward or clear ahead of you hails for room to tack, give her that room and, if you think her hail was improper, protest her." E-mail for Dick Rose may be sent to rules@sailingworld.com If, after the hailed boat responds to the hail by giving room, she thinks that the hailing boat broke Rule 20.3, the hailed boat may protest. If the hailing boat acknowledges that she broke Rule 20.3, she may take a penalty as provided in Rule 44.1. If she does not, and a protest committee finds she broke Rule 20.3, she will be disqualified. It's easy to comply with Rule 20 when a boat hails you for room to tack. Ok. I am not on either "side", and I am still not clear about how a collision was not avoided irregardless of which boat broke the rules. Nontheless, I am following the thread because I want to understand the rules. In my opinion based on his/her writings in these Courageous/Extreme2 threads, the evidence is becoming clear that Canal Bottom may likely part of the Courageous misinformation team. He continues to quote Mr. Rose as an authority on the subject of the Rules of Racing. Mr. Rose is an authority on the Rules, but Canal's quotes are misplaced and partial quotes. Here are two examples. There may be more. First, as to his quote above, it appears that Canal chose to specifically not include the relevant words (here in red) that Mr. Rose actually did write: "On a beat to windward, whenever a boat to leeward or clear ahead of you hails for room to tack, give her that room and, if you think her hail was improper, protest her." http://www.sailingworld.com/how-to/obstructions-fetching-and-luffing-rights Second, Canal should read the following quote from Mr. Rose that is in an article directly related to Rule 20 (and not related to Rule 19) (my emphasis added in the underlined text): "Rule 20 is a safety rule that enables us to avoid obstructions while beating to windward. It’s been in the book for over 50 years." http://www.sailingworld.com/how-to/clear-rules-many-boats So Canal, how are any of the Rule 20 concepts relevant to the Courageous / Extreme2 situation? (And for fairness, I don't totally understand how Extreme2 didn't notice Courageous coming from behind and/or didn't have the ability to avoid the contact by gybing away and later protesting.)
  4. The Jobson Retort

    Clearly, I am using this thread to educate myself. Looking for evidence that Rule 20 only applies upwind, I found that Dick Rose wrote in a SW article that "Rule 20 is a safety rule that enables us to avoid obstructions while beating to windward. It’s been in the book for over 50 years." If that is true, it's stupid that the rules don't simply state that explicitly.
  5. The Jobson Retort

    TJSocal: I agree with the single point / continuing obstruction analysis. But I suspect that even if Courageous were able to go between the rocks and the shore initially, they would eventually run out of depth as they approached the shore and 19.2c would still apply. You aren't saying rule 18 applies here are you?
  6. The Jobson Retort

    TJSocal: Well, I did skim through the casebook and all Rule 20 cases were upwind. I suppose that could make sense. So, if we can apply the facts of this case, I think this is how it would work. It appears that the 12s all came from behind and initially everyone was on starboard gybe. If that is true, then it seems that Courageous put herself in a situation where 19.2 applies. She either had to hit the obstruction or gybe without rights to avoid it. This is not a singular point obstruction (where 19.2b would apply), but a continuing obstruction because it was a shoreline. She had no rights to room because of 19.2 (and therefore has no rights under rule 11), rule 20 arguably doesn't apply, and she could only gybe anyway and be protested by Extreme2 for a rule 10 violation. Now, if Extreme2 didn't avoid contact, then it could have been chucked under 14. I mean, wouldn't you see the huge 70ft Courageous come up from behind and heading inside of you? How hard is it to quickly gybe a sprit boat even if a messy gybe? I still don't see how Extreme2 was so close to Courageous to not figure out on their own ahead of time that the huge boat between them and the shore might need to get out of there and gybe. A big part of sailing successfully is anticipating future scenarios. I also don't see how Courageous's boom could have swung over above Extreme2 unless Courageous had been on stbd near shore, and then gybed onto port to avoid shore, then gybed back again to avoid Extreme2 on stbd. But who knows what the real objective facts and timing of events.
  7. The Jobson Retort

    But what rule would apply if 20 is only for upwind?
  8. The Jobson Retort

    Well, I do hear what you are saying, but does that make sense? So some rules would only apply upwind? As to 20.1b, see what I wrote above. I think one has to read in some additional language to make it's application logical. But, of course, that doesn't mean that the rules are logical.
  9. The Jobson Retort

    Reading the titles of the rules helps. Also reading the defined terms. Note, the term "tack" is defined in such a way as to encompass both "taking" and "gybing." (Now, I haven't read into the casebook on this point, but the rules seem to be messy in the application of the term "tack". I think it can mean, depending on the context, a verb (as in "I am tacking" or "I am gybing"), or an adjective (as in "we are on port take")). 19: "Room to Pass an Obstruction" 20: "Room to Tack at an Obstruction" Rule 19 applies if the boat simply wants to go by an obstruction. So, if Courageous simply wanted to stay on the same gybe and not be taken up into the shore, 19 would apply. Rule 19.2© is part of that equation. If Courageous came in on stbd, from clear astern, between the smaller boats and the continuing obstruction (the shore), then Courageous was not entitled to room. Rule 20 is different. It allows a boat to get out of the situation, not simply "pass" the obstruction. There is a major dispute between the parties on the timing of events. Both seem to state that at some point in time all boats were on starboard gybe heading toward shore. If they were on port gybe, they would have been heading away from shore (see picture). But I don't think the timing matters. If Courageous came from clear astern, she wouldn't have been able to use Rule 19 to pass inside of the smaller boats, but not gybe. But, Courageous did in fact need room to gybe to avoid the obstruction and therefore had rights for room. Now, the only thing I don't understand is how 20.1b works. This cannot mean that the rule doesn't apply with boats are sailing downwind, can it? Or, when applying 20.1b, do we have to read in that the boats are sailing upwind, and the leeward boat that needs room cannot get room by reaching and must therefore head up to close-hauled first?
  10. Corsair Pulse 600

    Thinking about how the boat would work on inshore and large lake distance races (say 30-60 nautical miles), would it be possible to add an additional water-tight compartment or two in the cockpit? Something like what Melges 24s have. There is the one compartment up front which would be good for things like extra gear, but it would be good to separate out things like coolers and gas cans and keep that weight farther aft. Thoughts?
  11. Rolex Wild Oats XI

    Those crew are certainly dedicated! They are hiking out on the floats too!
  12. F-22 Update

    No problem with opinions. CO extensive writing goes way beyond just an opinion. Anyway, not trying to open this can of worms. SA can be fun, but this type of behavior gets old.
  13. F-22 Update

    I know I could use the ignore function, but sometimes I wish we had a "thumbs-up / thumbs-down" feature on this board so that certain users would get the idea that everyone else thinks they are crazy.
  14. F-22 Update

    Different build rates. Get over it.
  15. Fastbottoms Diving Service

    Yes, I am an idiot for posting here. But here goes. I have a couple of questions: To Armido: Your copy and past of the Lawyers.com website is funny. In and of itself meaningless, but funny nonetheless. Since you are doing a little internet research on the law already, I recommend looking up and think about the following: (a) defenses to defamation (specifically opinion and truth), and ( defemation per se (in regards to your comments about Fast Bottom's business ethic and Dave's Diving's business ethic). Please don't answer here. These are meant for your own self-reflection.