• 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.  

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Swanno

VOR Leg 6

Recommended Posts

Who thinks the scoreboard might look like this by tomorrow?

 

Team Telefónica 127

Groupama sailing team 127

CAMPER with Emirates Team NZ 124

PUMA Ocean Racing by BERG 118

Abu Dhabi Ocean Racing 60

Team Sanya 30

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be just wrong if Telefonica are docked 20 points - they throughly deserve to be the leaders, even if they made a sail measurement mistake, do you really think that made the difference between winning and losing? They'll just get a hefty fine I reckon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they just get a fine then what is stopping any other big budget boat taking an extra kite or jib for the next leg?

 

I personally think thy will be docked time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No answer from the jury till tomorrow:

http://www.volvooceanrace.com/en/news/5915_Verdict-set-for-Thursday-in-Telefonica-sail-protest-hearing.html

 

From Doug on the other thread:

http://noticeboard.volvooceanrace.com/wp-content/uploads/Q-As-NOR-5.2.1-5.2.2.pdf

 

That seems to be VOR's interpretation on sail inventory but I'd imagine that Tele have a different one.

It'd be interesting to know whether the jury haven't yet agreed on the ruling or if it's just the penalty that needs to be decided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If allegations are true they should be disqualified for the leg on which the infraction occurred.

 

I agree in principle but what if they interpreted the rules differently and have been completely honest about breaking the rule across the first 4 legs?

The commercial aspect puts real pressure on a few people here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alysum,

 

The advantages of an additional sail or one that's not part of the assortment allowed should not be under estimated. It could easily lead to several hours advantage over a 20 day leg. Telefonica may be sailing an outstanding regatta, but no boat deserves to gain an advantage by breaking the rules.

 

There's a few things to consider here.

 

First, some have said that they sailed with an unmeasured sail. If that's the case, then it's really quite reasonable to DSQ them. I can't imagine this is possible.

 

Second is the question of whether they had too many sails on board. Again, I can't imagine this is possible, yet if it is, it's again reasonable to DSQ them.

 

Finally if they had a legal number of measured sails, there's the question of whether the combination of sails is not allowed by the Rules, which by my reading are a little tricky to interpret. If the Telefonica representation is that they had an alternate interpretation that they might reasonably have believed was legal, then it makes sense to apply a time penalty. And that time penalty should be about 6 hours, which is enough to move them from 3rd to last, cost them 15 points and give Camper, Abu Dhabi and Sanya 5 additional points each and make the standings look like:

 

Telefonic 132

Groupama 127

Camper 124

Puma 113

Abu Dhabi 60

Sanya 30

 

I expect that the protest will either be tossed (unlikely based on the recent postings from the Committee) or that the penalty will be based on the right number of measured sails but an illegal combination and that by tomorrow evening the leader board will look as above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Onimod's question about "the first 4 legs" ...

 

The only protest is with respect to Leg 4. Legs 1, 2 and 3 have been sailed and no protests were lodged within the time limit for those legs. While it's possible that any infraction that resulted in the protest for leg 4 may have also been committed in an earlier leg, it's too late for any action to be taken. This entire thing is only about Leg 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we were to presume that Tele have misinterpreted the rules and made an 'honest' mistake then they would continue to honest and offer up their sail log to show when the illegal sail was used.

A time calculation based upon this might explain why the Jury requires the extra time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Onimod's question about "the first 4 legs" ...

 

The only protest is with respect to Leg 4. Legs 1, 2 and 3 have been sailed and no protests were lodged within the time limit for those legs. While it's possible that any infraction that resulted in the protest for leg 4 may have also been committed in an earlier leg, it's too late for any action to be taken. This entire thing is only about Leg 4.

 

Cheers.

I don't know where the rumoured 30 points penalty comes from - it's just not possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back in history. The Jury never comes down hard. A bit like the Ainslie debacle. Everyone agrees he broke the rules. Telefonica getting a 20 point hit,,,,,,,,yeah right. Just maybe why the public do not give a flying fuck about our sport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back in history. The Jury never comes down hard. A bit like the Ainslie debacle. Everyone agrees he broke the rules. Telefonica getting a 20 point hit,,,,,,,,yeah right. Just maybe why the public do not give a flying fuck about our sport

 

Not too sure I get the analogy there - Ainslie lost a major event win as a result of his actions. Are you saying that Telefonica being hit hard enough that they are no longer able to win the volvo would not be a harsh enough penalty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So being blatantly in disregard/ill repute of the sport (Rule 69) was in the spirit of the rule? Let you or I try it and see what the upshot would be. Perth was not a major event it was a very poorly run side show. Lets have the conversation about Telefonica tomorrow. My call is not a major hit. Like Ben too controversial and the sport is fucked as it is.

 

 

 

Go back in history. The Jury never comes down hard. A bit like the Ainslie debacle. Everyone agrees he broke the rules. Telefonica getting a 20 point hit,,,,,,,,yeah right. Just maybe why the public do not give a flying fuck about our sport

 

Not too sure I get the analogy there - Ainslie lost a major event win as a result of his actions. Are you saying that Telefonica being hit hard enough that they are no longer able to win the volvo would not be a harsh enough penalty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally if they had a legal number of measured sails, there's the question of whether the combination of sails is not allowed by the Rules, which by my reading are a little tricky to interpret. If the Telefonica representation is that they had an alternate interpretation that they might reasonably have believed was legal, then it makes sense to apply a time penalty. And that time penalty should be about 6 hours, which is enough to move them from 3rd to last, cost them 15 points and give Camper, Abu Dhabi and Sanya 5 additional points each and make the standings look like:

 

Telefonic 132

Groupama 127

Camper 124

Puma 113

Abu Dhabi 60

Sanya 30

 

I expect that the protest will either be tossed (unlikely based on the recent postings from the Committee) or that the penalty will be based on the right number of measured sails but an illegal combination and that by tomorrow evening the leader board will look as above.

 

Copied my post from the leg 5 thread:

 

From the RRS (my emphasis):

64 DECISIONS

64.1 Penalties and Exoneration

(a) When the protest committee decides that a boat that is a party to a protest hearing has broken a rule, it shall disqualify her

unless some other penalty applies. A penalty shall be imposed whether or not the applicable rule was mentioned in the protest.

 

After a rather cursory check, I can't find "some other penalty" for breaking NOR 5.2.2. Thus it seems DSQ is the only option for punishment if Telefonika is found guilty. Please correct me if wrong.

 

If Telefonica is found guilty and DSQ'ed, the point tally will be:

 

Groupama: 127 points

Telefonica: 127 points

Camper: 124 points (+5)

Puma: 113 points

 

Abu Dhabi: 60 points (+5)

Sanya: 30 points (+5)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you watched the Leg 3 documentary there was also an issue where Tele's AIS unit was not activated when required in the shipping channels. They claimed it was on and must have been a "bad unit with a range of about two boat lengths". So it was off the whole time they were in the shipping channel, giving them a huge advantage. I don't know if this was ever investigated, or their supposedly faulty unit was tested at the leg's conclusion but I didn't hear of anything. If they're found guilty on the subject of sails... DSQ the fuckers from the leg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally if they had a legal number of measured sails, there's the question of whether the combination of sails is not allowed by the Rules, which by my reading are a little tricky to interpret. If the Telefonica representation is that they had an alternate interpretation that they might reasonably have believed was legal, then it makes sense to apply a time penalty. And that time penalty should be about 6 hours, which is enough to move them from 3rd to last, cost them 15 points and give Camper, Abu Dhabi and Sanya 5 additional points each and make the standings look like:

 

Telefonic 132

Groupama 127

Camper 124

Puma 113

Abu Dhabi 60

Sanya 30

 

I expect that the protest will either be tossed (unlikely based on the recent postings from the Committee) or that the penalty will be based on the right number of measured sails but an illegal combination and that by tomorrow evening the leader board will look as above.

 

Copied my post from the leg 5 thread:

 

From the RRS (my emphasis):

64 DECISIONS

64.1 Penalties and Exoneration

(a) When the protest committee decides that a boat that is a party to a protest hearing has broken a rule, it shall disqualify her

unless some other penalty applies. A penalty shall be imposed whether or not the applicable rule was mentioned in the protest.

 

After a rather cursory check, I can't find "some other penalty" for breaking NOR 5.2.2. Thus it seems DSQ is the only option for punishment if Telefonika is found guilty. Please correct me if wrong.

 

If Telefonica is found guilty and DSQ'ed, the point tally will be:

 

Groupama: 127 points

Telefonica: 127 points

Camper: 124 points (+5)

Puma: 113 points

 

Abu Dhabi: 60 points (+5)

Sanya: 30 points (+5)

 

I'm I missing something in the NOR, because if Tele is DSQ'ed I don't understand why Camper and others will gain 5 points. I cannot recall a time where I have seen a boat ahead of me get DSQ'ed and I gain points (or lose them in a low point scoring scenario). Shouldn't Tele just lose 20 points and all the other scores remain the same, if they are to be DSQ'ed?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm I missing something in the NOR, because if Tele is DSQ'ed I don't understand why Camper and others will gain 5 points. I cannot recall a time where I have seen a boat ahead of me get DSQ'ed and I gain points (or lose them in a low point scoring scenario). Shouldn't Tele just lose 20 points and all the other scores remain the same, if they are to be DSQ'ed?

 

 

Yes you do get more points with the low points system if somebody is DSQ'ed in front of you. If Tele is DSQ then Camper finished in third and not fourth, i.e. they would get the points for 3rd place which happen to be 5 more than what they got for 4th.

 

Edit: in a low points system you obviously get less points if somebody in front of you is DSQ'ed, since everybody behind the DSQ moves up a place (thus gets 1 point less).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Details: Chief Measurer was consulted by Telefonica, gave them the all clear, therefore they can't toss them out...

 

so yes they did have the extra sail, and got away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but from a non-sailor perspective that's bullshit.

Why?

 

- Rules were ambiguous

- Tele sought and obtained clarification from Chief Measurer

- Tele declared their full inventory to Chief Measurer, who gave approval (twice, once before the start and once after the finish)

 

If the Chief Measurer has endorsed their sail inventory, they've done nothing wrong (legally or morally). The only thing they've transgressed is a clarification that was written after the event.

 

The only screw up here is by the race organisers. Even they deserve the benefit of the doubt; this sort of thing happens the whole time, the only thing you can do is stop the same loophole being exploited twice...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but from a non-sailor perspective that's bullshit.

Why?

 

- Rules were ambiguous

- Tele sought and obtained clarification from Chief Measurer

- Tele declared their full inventory to Chief Measurer, who gave approval (twice, once before the start and once after the finish)

 

If the Chief Measurer has endorsed their sail inventory, they've done nothing wrong (legally or morally). The only thing they've transgressed is a clarification that was written after the event.

 

The only screw up here is by the race organisers. Even they deserve the benefit of the doubt; this sort of thing happens the whole time, the only thing you can do is stop the same loophole being exploited twice...

 

Tis true. In essence, Tele outsmarted everyone else on Leg 4. Maybe they do rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but from a non-sailor perspective that's bullshit.

Why?

 

- Rules were ambiguous

- Tele sought and obtained clarification from Chief Measurer

- Tele declared their full inventory to Chief Measurer, who gave approval (twice, once before the start and once after the finish)

 

If the Chief Measurer has endorsed their sail inventory, they've done nothing wrong (legally or morally). The only thing they've transgressed is a clarification that was written after the event.

 

The only screw up here is by the race organisers. Even they deserve the benefit of the doubt; this sort of thing happens the whole time, the only thing you can do is stop the same loophole being exploited twice...

 

Not disagreeing. Tele didn't do anything wrong but had an advantage for one if not four legs. Were they not in lead I wouldn't find it too fishy but they are. So, they didn't do anything wrong but it's likely an uneven playing field. Bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not disagreeing. Tele didn't do anything wrong but had an advantage for one if not four legs. Were they not in lead I wouldn't find it too fishy but they are. So, they didn't do anything wrong but it's likely an uneven playing field. Bullshit.

The loophole was there for everyone to exploit, but Tele were the only team to spot it and take advantage, so the playing field was level. From a legal and moral perspective, I don't think it's any different to spotting more wind on the other side of the course, and being the only boat to tack over and get into it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case why did the RC/measurer have to go through the rigmarole of filing a protest, conducting a hearing, postponing the decision to today, etc.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case why did the RC/measurer have to go through the rigmarole of filing a protest, conducting a hearing, postponing the decision to today, etc.?

 

My guess is that they needed an outside, independent panel to figure out how to deal with the screw up since it affected the other teams...especially after closing the loophole with the amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so yes they did have the extra sail, and got away with it.

 

Can someone please explain this statement? Telefonica sailed with 10 sails, just like everyone else. If they took an extra storm jib, then they gave up another sail. We have heard from the other boats (Puma) that there are two cuts of the storm jib, one of which is advantageous as a heavy weather staysail, and that one of the strategic decisions is to choose one or the other. Tele made a strategic decision in a different direction. I wonder what sail they left on the dock. I noticed on the run into Aukland that their spinnaker was a lot flatter than Camper's. So did they leave the big runner on the dock?

 

But really can we please stop calling them cheaters or somehow exploiting the rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so yes they did have the extra sail, and got away with it.

 

Can someone please explain this statement? Telefonica sailed with 10 sails, just like everyone else. If they took an extra storm jib, then they gave up another sail. We have heard from the other boats (Puma) that there are two cuts of the storm jib, one of which is advantageous as a heavy weather staysail, and that one of the strategic decisions is to choose one or the other. Tele made a strategic decision in a different direction. I wonder what sail they left on the dock. I noticed on the run into Aukland that their spinnaker was a lot flatter than Camper's. So did they leave the big runner on the dock?

 

But really can we please stop calling them cheaters or somehow exploiting the rule?

 

+1

 

It's clear they didn't have more sails. I wonder, too which sail they left on the dock and what might have been the reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so yes they did have the extra sail, and got away with it.

 

Can someone please explain this statement? Telefonica sailed with 10 sails, just like everyone else. If they took an extra storm jib, then they gave up another sail. We have heard from the other boats (Puma) that there are two cuts of the storm jib, one of which is advantageous as a heavy weather staysail, and that one of the strategic decisions is to choose one or the other. Tele made a strategic decision in a different direction. I wonder what sail they left on the dock. I noticed on the run into Aukland that their spinnaker was a lot flatter than Camper's. So did they leave the big runner on the dock?

 

But really can we please stop calling them cheaters or somehow exploiting the rule?

Yes. Some people actually care if they have integrity or not. Why assume anyone is purposely breaking the rules? From what I've seen, Tele is leading this race because they've sailed better and broken less than anyone else, not because they juiced the rules. Sheesh.

 

Go Puma!

 

Koukel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting Franck Cammas interview in Le Figaro this morning.

 

http://www.lefigaro....re-tres-bon.php

 

One especially interesting bit about keeping the speed down inthe Deep south to avoid breaking the boat:

 

Il y a des moments où il faut utiliser le maximum de potentiel du bateau, d'autres où c'est inutile car la différence ne se fera pas là. En multicoque, c'est encore plus vrai. Lever le pied est assez rare dans la façon de naviguer des Anglo-Saxons. Particulièrement sur la Volvo, car, sur ces bateaux-là, on ne risque pas de chavirer. Cette gestion-là est très compliquée, pas forcément rationnelle. Et, pour Thomas Coville et moi, le multicoque nous a aidés. Quand nous étions sous-toilés dans le Grand Sud, et que Camper en profite pour nous doubler, les équipiers anglo-saxons du bord étaient fous! C'est là qu'il faut être fort dans sa tête pour rester dans notre choix. Une dizaine d'heures après, Camper a cassé et, à bord, on n'en a plus entendu parler.

Translation (google + my lousy effort):

There are times when you must use the maximum potential of the boat, others where it is useless because the difference won't be made there. It's even more true with multihulls. To slow down isn't in the sailing habits for the Anglo-Saxons. Particularly on the Volvo because, on these boats, there is no danger of capsizing. This management is very complicated, and not necessarily rational. And for ThomasCoville and I, ou multihull experience helped. When we were under-powered down in the Deep South, and Camper took the opportunity to overtake us, the English-speaking crew on board went crazy! This is the moment where you need to be strong to keep to your choices. Ten hours later, Camper had a failure, and we no longer heard a word about it.

There is no mention of the ruling for Tele's storm sail, but Cammas acknowledges that it's going to be very hard to beat the spaniards for the overall win with a 20 points deficit, but anything is still possible if they manage to finish ahead of them in all the coming legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but from a non-sailor perspective that's bullshit.

Why?

 

- Rules were ambiguous

- Tele sought and obtained clarification from Chief Measurer

- Tele declared their full inventory to Chief Measurer, who gave approval (twice, once before the start and once after the finish)

 

If the Chief Measurer has endorsed their sail inventory, they've done nothing wrong (legally or morally). The only thing they've transgressed is a clarification that was written after the event.

 

The only screw up here is by the race organisers. Even they deserve the benefit of the doubt; this sort of thing happens the whole time, the only thing you can do is stop the same loophole being exploited twice...

 

That's mischievously misleading. The rule Telefonica breached was/is quite clear: nothing "ambiguous" about NOR5.2.2b, nor was there any "loophole". The Chief Measurer did NOT "endorse" Tele's sail inventory in Sanya: if anything, he can probably be fairly accused of being ignorant of the relevant rule, but ignorance is not "endorsing" a breach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's mischievously misleading. The rule Telefonica breached was/is quite clear: nothing "ambiguous" about NOR5.2.2b, nor was there any "loophole". The Chief Measurer did NOT "endorse" Tele's sail inventory in Sanya: if anything, he can probably be fairly accused of being ignorant of the relevant rule, but ignorance is not "endorsing" a breach.

It would appear that the IJ don't agree with you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but from a non-sailor perspective that's bullshit.

Why?

 

- Rules were ambiguous

- Tele sought and obtained clarification from Chief Measurer

- Tele declared their full inventory to Chief Measurer, who gave approval (twice, once before the start and once after the finish)

 

If the Chief Measurer has endorsed their sail inventory, they've done nothing wrong (legally or morally). The only thing they've transgressed is a clarification that was written after the event.

 

The only screw up here is by the race organisers. Even they deserve the benefit of the doubt; this sort of thing happens the whole time, the only thing you can do is stop the same loophole being exploited twice...

 

Actually, it isn't "the only thing you can do", but you certainly make Camper's case for them (and I'm not a big Camper fan).

 

62 REDRESS

62.1 A request for redress shall be based on a claim that a boat's finishing place in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse by

( a ) an improper action or omission of the race committee or protest committee,

 

In this case, Telefonica was given an interpretation of the sail inventory rules that was not available to the other competitors and gave them a material advantage. It didn't even matter that the interpretation was later deemed false. It also doesn't matter what choice of sail they left behind. They were given information not available to the other competitors. They didn't do anything wrong, it wasn't their job to tell the other boats, that was the OA's job. I'm surprised the other boats didn't request redress, because it couldn't be more clear that it is warranted and they should at least register their objections. But they don't have to request it to be awarded redress.

 

64.2 Decisions on Redress

When the protest committee decides that a boat is entitled to redress under rule 62, it shall make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected, whether or not they asked for redress. This may be to adjust the scoring (see rule A4 for some examples) or finishing times of boats, to abandon the race, to let the results stand or to make some other arrangement. When in doubt about the facts or probable results of any arrangement for the race or series, especially before abandoning the race, the protest committee shall take evidence from appropriate sources.

 

They can adjust points, and have a wide latitude to do so, i.e., they can both add and subtract. Not that I think they will grant redress, it smells like the fix is in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smack you make me laugh.

 

You change your mind so often !!! :rolleyes:

 

Heh-heh.

 

Facts are facts. Based on one story we get from the VOR or elsewhere, an outcome will seem clear (and I happily jump on it). Then other facts come out, and that all changes (and I happily jump on that).

 

I don't change my mind, I just jump on anything that moves. I'm a dude. What do you expect?

 

My "Flick the Tele" comment stands though, at least based on the initial set of facts (e.g. - the clarification of the rule). Had they broken the rule, they deserved to be flicked. But then out comes the haziness of the rule and the wayward CM - and Tele comes out smelling like a rose.

 

Flick the CM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can adjust points, and have a wide latitude to do so, i.e., they can both add and subtract. Not that I think they will grant redress, it smells like the fix is in.

Slippery slope, adjusting points.

 

Race managment are all trying to make a living in sailing too, just like designers and sailers. Just a guess, but unless something extraordinary happens it would be pretty risky to start offering redress. I can't think of a major US sport ever where a the outcome of a game was changed after the fact due to someone getting screwed over by a ref, and our refs suck it up in the biggest events. Outside of sailing, or even outside of the AC, has a major result been turned over? World Cup? Boxing? I think the NCAA has pulled wins from a team before, but so long after the fact that its only been a statistical change. Drug test failure in the Olympics? That's not a bad call or a dodgy rules issue though.

 

Koukel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can adjust points, and have a wide latitude to do so, i.e., they can both add and subtract. Not that I think they will grant redress, it smells like the fix is in.

Slippery slope, adjusting points.

 

Race managment are all trying to make a living in sailing too, just like designers and sailers. Just a guess, but unless something extraordinary happens it would be pretty risky to start offering redress. I can't think of a major US sport ever where a the outcome of a game was changed after the fact due to someone getting screwed over by a ref, and our refs suck it up in the biggest events. Outside of sailing, or even outside of the AC, has a major result been turned over? World Cup? Boxing? I think the NCAA has pulled wins from a team before, but so long after the fact that its only been a statistical change. Drug test failure in the Olympics? That's not a bad call or a dodgy rules issue though.

 

Koukel

 

Except the VOR is not some mickey-mouse 'merikan sport interrupting TV commercials tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently some people are struggling to see the ambiguity which to me seems quite clear.

 

Firstly the applicable NOR clauses:

5.2 WHILE RACING

5.2.1

(a ) A Boat shall have on board 1 storm trysail, 1 storm jib and1 heavy weather jib (HWJ).

(b ) In an In-Port Race. Boats shall also have on board an In Port race spinnaker as described in NOR APPENDIX E.

(c ) The storm trysail shall only be used in case of safety or emergency and sheeted without a mainsail.

5.2.2 In addition to the sails required to be on board in NOR 5.2.1(a) a Boat may carry on board sails to a maximum of:

(a ) 1 Mainsail

(b ) 2 Headsails (which may include additional HWJ's and storm jibs)

(c ) 3 Spinnakers including 1 fractional spinnaker, which complies with Volvo Open 70 Rule v.3. Section 11.3.9. None of these 3 additional spinnakers can be an In Port race spinnaker as described in NOR APPENDIX E

(d ) 1 Staysail (SS). Only permitted on a leg.

And now the problem:

5.2.2
In addition to
the sails required to be on board in NOR 5.2.1(a) a Boat may carry on

board sails to a maximum of:

Another plain english way of saying the same thing:

As well as the required sails, you can also carry additional sails according to the following list...

Now I'd bet my life that's not how the rule was intended to be interpreted but given the way it was written it certainly can be.

The problem is the word addition and it's location in the sentence.

Instead of chopping together legalese from previously written rules elsewhere it could better have been written thus:

"The maximum number of sails allowed to be on board, including those listed in 5.2.1, shall be be no more than..."

 

Everyone was free to interpret the rule as Telefonica did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently some people are struggling to see the ambiguity which to me seems quite clear.

 

Firstly the applicable NOR clauses:

5.2 WHILE RACING

5.2.1

(a ) A Boat shall have on board 1 storm trysail, 1 storm jib and1 heavy weather jib (HWJ).

(b ) In an In-Port Race. Boats shall also have on board an In Port race spinnaker as described in NOR APPENDIX E.

(c ) The storm trysail shall only be used in case of safety or emergency and sheeted without a mainsail.

5.2.2 In addition to the sails required to be on board in NOR 5.2.1(a) a Boat may carry on board sails to a maximum of:

(a ) 1 Mainsail

(b ) 2 Headsails (which may include additional HWJ's and storm jibs)

(c ) 3 Spinnakers including 1 fractional spinnaker, which complies with Volvo Open 70 Rule v.3. Section 11.3.9. None of these 3 additional spinnakers can be an In Port race spinnaker as described in NOR APPENDIX E

(d ) 1 Staysail (SS). Only permitted on a leg.

And now the problem:

5.2.2
In addition to
the sails required to be on board in NOR 5.2.1(a) a Boat may carry on

board sails to a maximum of:

Another plain english way of saying the same thing:

As well as the required sails, you can also carry additional sails according to the following list...

Now I'd bet my life that's not how the rule was intended to be interpreted but given the way it was written it certainly can be.

The problem is the word addition and it's location in the sentence.

Instead of chopping together legalese from previously written rules elsewhere it could better have been written thus:

"The maximum number of sails allowed to be on board, including those listed in 5.2.1, shall be be no more than..."

 

Everyone was free to interpret the rule as Telefonica did.

I think some of you guys are trying too hard to find the "ambiguity" cited by the decision: it does not exist!!

 

"5.2.1.a A Boat shall have on board 1 storm trysail, 1 storm jib and1 heavy weather jib (HWJ)."

That's 3 sails which are compulsory to have onboard. Then 5.2.2 qualifies the spread of the other 7 sails required, to make up the permissible total of 10 sails:

 

"5.2.2 In addition to the sails required to be on board in NOR 5.2.1(a) a Boat may carry on board sails to a maximum of:

a: 1 Mainsail

b: 2 Headsails (which may include additional HWJ's and storm jibs)

c: 3 Spinnakers including 1 fractional spinnaker, which complies with Volvo Open 70 Rule v.3. Section 11.3.9. None of these 3 additional spinnakers can be an In Port race spinnaker as described in NOR APPENDIX E

d: 1 Staysail (SS). Only permitted on a leg."

 

5.2.2 simply states that in addition to the compulsory 3 specialist sails in 5.2.1a, they MAY carry an additional 7 sails as specified. Telefonica could have chosen to carry 1 mainsail, 2 headsails, only 2 spinnakers, and 2 storm jibs, and they would have been in breach of NOR5.2.2b. They could have opted to carry only 8 sails including 2 headsails and 2 storm jibs and they would still be in breach. 5.2.2b can't be any clearer: if you want an extra storm jib or an extra HWJ, they count in your allocated headsail quota of 2.

 

The operative numbers you people should be looking at are 10 (maximum number of sails allowed), and 2 (headsails). The protest involved the 2 headsails and 2 storm jibs carried by Telefonica in clear violation of 5.2.2b: there is no ambiguity whatsoever. What we're being asked to swallow is an insulting insinuation that perhaps it is "ambiguous" to someone with English as a second language: it still does not annul the breach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watching the VOR 2001 tapes and i am so glad the boats are faster, the coverage is better and the race is how it is.

 

Leg 2 from Cape Town to Sydney is covered in about 3 minutes which shows the start and the finish...how boring to watch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watching the VOR 2001 tapes and i am so glad the boats are faster, the coverage is better and the race is how it is.

 

Leg 2 from Cape Town to Sydney is covered in about 3 minutes which shows the start and the finish...how boring to watch!

 

Agreed; I can't wait for suggested live 24/7 feeds from each boat in the next race.

In the short term I hope there is more breeze and a bigger course for the itajai in-port race.

The pro am was really pathetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indio

Read my post again - you're not getting it.

You're reading what you want it to say, not what it actually says.

 

On the contrary, I do get it: it's you guys trying to look for a non-existent "ambiguity" to justify the decision, who do not "get it". You're claiming the "In addition to..." is the source of the "ambiguity", a claim patently nonsensical. The placement of "In addition..." is correct, as it qualifies the additional optional sails that MAY be carried, and their composition. It effectively stipulates that IN ADDITION to the 3 compulsory specialty sails, a team MAY take another 7 sails which shall be limited to the sails specified in 5.2.2: and if a team decides to take an extra storm jib or HWJ, then they can only take 1 headsail because the extra sj or HWJ counts as a headsail. Why is it so difficult to comprehend this?!

 

Interestingly, I notice on the noticeboard at the vulvaoceanrace site that they have published an AMENDED version of the decision. The amendment seems to be an attempt to retrospectively legitimise the initial "interpretation" attributed to the Chief Measurer, and involves changing the words in clause 2.4 from "..with the Chief Measurer's previous interpretation..." to "...with the interpretation previously applied by the Chief Measurer." This is clearly a reaction to the fact that the Chief Measurer is not empowered to issue interpretations of NORs or SIs.

 

Sounds like they're the ones getting confused!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it so difficult to comprehend this?!

 

There is nothing wrong with you're interpretation.

Unfortunately the way the rule was written, there was another one too.

Plenty of people here can see it, Telefonica saw it (probably first) so did the Chief Measurer, the RC and the IJ.

 

It's pretty clear you can't or don't want to see the lateral alternative so I won't bother you (and everyone else who is probably bored to death by now) about it any more.

Back to the racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[snip snip] and [snip]

 

Do you know for a fact that telefonica sailed with five headsails (ISAF definition) e.g. 2 storm jibs, 1 heavy weather jib, and two other sails (such as a light air jib and an all purpose jib)? Can you provide the documentary evidence, such as the chief measurer's report at departure from Sanya or the chief measurer's report from Aukland? It would be most helpful to this discussion if you could, thereby supporting your claim that Telefonica pressed the rules in an un-sportsman-like manner.

 

The one party that I am certain of who has had access to such information is the International Jury. In their review of the information, they have determined that in fact, Telefonica did not breach the rules. Their response is that the protest was dismissed, that is, it had no merit what so ever.

 

We could argue all day long about the extent of the ambiguity of a "may" term, and goodness knows, in the practice of Law, that word is very complicated. But adjudication, particularly in as simple a world as sport, should be based on facts, that is, on information clearly established as facts. Do you have any information established as fact that telefonica sailed with... oh whatever...

 

Yeah I can't top cookie. Particularly since he so obviously is, like, Spanish...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[snip snip] and [snip]

 

Do you know for a fact that telefonica sailed with five headsails (ISAF definition) e.g. 2 storm jibs, 1 heavy weather jib, and two other sails (such as a light air jib and an all purpose jib)? Can you provide the documentary evidence, such as the chief measurer's report at departure from Sanya or the chief measurer's report from Aukland? It would be most helpful to this discussion if you could, thereby supporting your claim that Telefonica pressed the rules in an un-sportsman-like manner.

 

The one party that I am certain of who has had access to such information is the International Jury. In their review of the information, they have determined that in fact, Telefonica did not breach the rules. Their response is that the protest was dismissed, that is, it had no merit what so ever.

 

We could argue all day long about the extent of the ambiguity of a "may" term, and goodness knows, in the practice of Law, that word is very complicated. But adjudication, particularly in as simple a world as sport, should be based on facts, that is, on information clearly established as facts. Do you have any information established as fact that telefonica sailed with... oh whatever...

 

Yeah I can't top cookie. Particularly since he so obviously is, like, Spanish...

 

Knock yourself out...from the Decision:

 

"1 Facts Found

1.1 Telefonica sailed leg 4 with 10 sails, including 2 headsails and 2 storm jibs. Leg 4 started on 19th February and Telefonica finished on 11th March."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[snip snip] and [snip]

 

Do you know for a fact that telefonica sailed with five headsails (ISAF definition) e.g. 2 storm jibs, 1 heavy weather jib, and two other sails (such as a light air jib and an all purpose jib)? Can you provide the documentary evidence, such as the chief measurer's report at departure from Sanya or the chief measurer's report from Aukland? It would be most helpful to this discussion if you could, thereby supporting your claim that Telefonica pressed the rules in an un-sportsman-like manner.

 

The one party that I am certain of who has had access to such information is the International Jury. In their review of the information, they have determined that in fact, Telefonica did not breach the rules. Their response is that the protest was dismissed, that is, it had no merit what so ever.

 

We could argue all day long about the extent of the ambiguity of a "may" term, and goodness knows, in the practice of Law, that word is very complicated. But adjudication, particularly in as simple a world as sport, should be based on facts, that is, on information clearly established as facts. Do you have any information established as fact that telefonica sailed with... oh whatever...

 

Yeah I can't top cookie. Particularly since he so obviously is, like, Spanish...

 

Knock yourself out...from the Decision:

 

"1 Facts Found

1.1 Telefonica sailed leg 4 with 10 sails, including 2 headsails and 2 storm jibs. Leg 4 started on 19th February and Telefonica finished on 11th March."

 

'xactly - by the International Jury`s count Telefonica complied with the rules. Can we stop now? Or do you have other information such as the chief measurers report...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it so difficult to comprehend this?!

 

There is nothing wrong with you're interpretation.

Unfortunately the way the rule was written, there was another one too.

Plenty of people here can see it, Telefonica saw it (probably first) so did the Chief Measurer, the RC and the IJ.

 

It's pretty clear you can't or don't want to see the lateral alternative so I won't bother you (and everyone else who is probably bored to death by now) about it any more.

Back to the racing.

 

I'm honestly struggling to see what other possible interpretation could be derived from NOR 5.2 inclusive, as written. That Telefonica was given an interpretation prior to leaving Sanya is a given: for the IJ to now claim that the "application" of that interpretation conflicted with the RC interpretation of March 18th as the indication that 5.2 was "ambiguous" is unsustainable.

 

Telefonica was advised that the NOR "placed a minimums, not maximum, on the number of storm jibs which could be carried" - which is correct. 5.2.2b then qualifies this interpretation as to the status of any additional storm jib (or HWJ) to be carried. End of debate. "Ambiguity" is a cop-out by the IJ, whose credibility deserves the ridicule it has attracted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you looked at Sail Measurement ss 11 of the Volvo Open 70 Rule V3 (I am sure you have).

 

The ISAF definition of headsail, etc. is set aside and the measurement of sails is a matter of declaration, particularly as it relates to sails other than mainsails and trysails. Measurement of sail area is then applied as to a declared sail, whether spinnaker, staysail or headsail. A storm jib (ISAF rules) could be declared a staysail and be within maximum limits. It could also be declared as a spinnaker if it did not use battens.

 

A reasonable analysis takes all this into consideration. For example, leaving a light air staysail on the dock and taking a second storm jib, declared as a staysail, is most certainly a possibility. Given the replacement criteria under the Notice of Race, using up storm jibs makes a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you looked at Sail Measurement ss 11 of the Volvo Open 70 Rule V3 (I am sure you have).

 

The ISAF definition of headsail, etc. is set aside and the measurement of sails is a matter of declaration, particularly as it relates to sails other than mainsails and trysails. Measurement of sail area is then applied as to a declared sail, whether spinnaker, staysail or headsail. A storm jib (ISAF rules) could be declared a staysail and be within maximum limits. It could also be declared as a spinnaker if it did not use battens.

 

A reasonable analysis takes all this into consideration. For example, leaving a light air staysail on the dock and taking a second storm jib, declared as a staysail, is most certainly a possibility. Given the replacement criteria under the Notice of Race, using up storm jibs makes a lot of sense.

 

Valid comments, except an extra storm jib could only ever take the place of one of 2 headsails, not as a substitute for a spinnaker or staysail. It's not disputed that Telefonica arrived in Auckland with 2 headsails and 2 storm jibs included in their inventory, and this is gist of the protest. Even IF they dropped a spinnaker and they measured in the 2nd storm jib as a spinnaker and this was not picked up by the Chief Measurer in Sanya, the CM's error does not in itself absolve Tele from the breach of 5.2.2b.

 

Man, I'm out of this circular debate....I'll just watch the Volvo China Open championship cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should get one of these jobs Indie. All highly paid and you get to fuck up on a race by race basis. Was Grael not accused of cheating last time?

 

 

 

Have you looked at Sail Measurement ss 11 of the Volvo Open 70 Rule V3 (I am sure you have).

 

The ISAF definition of headsail, etc. is set aside and the measurement of sails is a matter of declaration, particularly as it relates to sails other than mainsails and trysails. Measurement of sail area is then applied as to a declared sail, whether spinnaker, staysail or headsail. A storm jib (ISAF rules) could be declared a staysail and be within maximum limits. It could also be declared as a spinnaker if it did not use battens.

 

A reasonable analysis takes all this into consideration. For example, leaving a light air staysail on the dock and taking a second storm jib, declared as a staysail, is most certainly a possibility. Given the replacement criteria under the Notice of Race, using up storm jibs makes a lot of sense.

 

Valid comments, except an extra storm jib could only ever take the place of one of 2 headsails, not as a substitute for a spinnaker or staysail. It's not disputed that Telefonica arrived in Auckland with 2 headsails and 2 storm jibs included in their inventory, and this is gist of the protest. Even IF they dropped a spinnaker and they measured in the 2nd storm jib as a spinnaker and this was not picked up by the Chief Measurer in Sanya, the CM's error does not in itself absolve Tele from the breach of 5.2.2b.

 

Man, I'm out of this circular debate....I'll just watch the Volvo China Open championship cool.gif

 

Maybe you should get one of these jobs Indie. All highly paid and you get to fuck up on a race by race basis. Was Grael not accused of cheating last time?

 

 

 

Have you looked at Sail Measurement ss 11 of the Volvo Open 70 Rule V3 (I am sure you have).

 

The ISAF definition of headsail, etc. is set aside and the measurement of sails is a matter of declaration, particularly as it relates to sails other than mainsails and trysails. Measurement of sail area is then applied as to a declared sail, whether spinnaker, staysail or headsail. A storm jib (ISAF rules) could be declared a staysail and be within maximum limits. It could also be declared as a spinnaker if it did not use battens.

 

A reasonable analysis takes all this into consideration. For example, leaving a light air staysail on the dock and taking a second storm jib, declared as a staysail, is most certainly a possibility. Given the replacement criteria under the Notice of Race, using up storm jibs makes a lot of sense.

 

Valid comments, except an extra storm jib could only ever take the place of one of 2 headsails, not as a substitute for a spinnaker or staysail. It's not disputed that Telefonica arrived in Auckland with 2 headsails and 2 storm jibs included in their inventory, and this is gist of the protest. Even IF they dropped a spinnaker and they measured in the 2nd storm jib as a spinnaker and this was not picked up by the Chief Measurer in Sanya, the CM's error does not in itself absolve Tele from the breach of 5.2.2b.

 

Man, I'm out of this circular debate....I'll just watch the Volvo China Open championship cool.gif

 

Maybe you should get one of these jobs Indie. All highly paid and you get to fuck up on a race by race basis. Was Grael not accused of cheating last time?

 

 

 

Have you looked at Sail Measurement ss 11 of the Volvo Open 70 Rule V3 (I am sure you have).

 

The ISAF definition of headsail, etc. is set aside and the measurement of sails is a matter of declaration, particularly as it relates to sails other than mainsails and trysails. Measurement of sail area is then applied as to a declared sail, whether spinnaker, staysail or headsail. A storm jib (ISAF rules) could be declared a staysail and be within maximum limits. It could also be declared as a spinnaker if it did not use battens.

 

A reasonable analysis takes all this into consideration. For example, leaving a light air staysail on the dock and taking a second storm jib, declared as a staysail, is most certainly a possibility. Given the replacement criteria under the Notice of Race, using up storm jibs makes a lot of sense.

 

Valid comments, except an extra storm jib could only ever take the place of one of 2 headsails, not as a substitute for a spinnaker or staysail. It's not disputed that Telefonica arrived in Auckland with 2 headsails and 2 storm jibs included in their inventory, and this is gist of the protest. Even IF they dropped a spinnaker and they measured in the 2nd storm jib as a spinnaker and this was not picked up by the Chief Measurer in Sanya, the CM's error does not in itself absolve Tele from the breach of 5.2.2b.

 

Man, I'm out of this circular debate....I'll just watch the Volvo China Open championship cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it so difficult to comprehend this?!

 

There is nothing wrong with you're interpretation.

Unfortunately the way the rule was written, there was another one too.

Plenty of people here can see it, Telefonica saw it (probably first) so did the Chief Measurer, the RC and the IJ.

 

It's pretty clear you can't or don't want to see the lateral alternative so I won't bother you (and everyone else who is probably bored to death by now) about it any more.

Back to the racing.

 

I'm honestly struggling to see what other possible interpretation could be derived from NOR 5.2 inclusive, as written. That Telefonica was given an interpretation prior to leaving Sanya is a given: for the IJ to now claim that the "application" of that interpretation conflicted with the RC interpretation of March 18th as the indication that 5.2 was "ambiguous" is unsustainable.

 

Telefonica was advised that the NOR "placed a minimums, not maximum, on the number of storm jibs which could be carried" - which is correct. 5.2.2b then qualifies this interpretation as to the status of any additional storm jib (or HWJ) to be carried. End of debate. "Ambiguity" is a cop-out by the IJ, whose credibility deserves the ridicule it has attracted.

 

Sheesh! (I know I said I wouldn't do this)

5.2.1 sets out a minimum sail count of specific sails.

5.2.2 CAN be read to set out the number and combination of sails IN ADDITION TO 5.2.1 because the scentence starts with the phrase IN ADDITION TO and it does not specifically state that the sails in 5.2.1 are inclusive of that set (like it should and as you seem to believe).

That we (you vs the world) are arguing about it is the very definition of ambiguity, no?

 

I'm honestly struggling..

 

I know you are, and I don't doubt you're honest intent.

I would really prefer Telefonica to have 20 less points but the logic of the international jury is sound.

The f*&k up is in the original NoR which has now been clarified and effectively ratified by an IJ.

Who are these people ridiculing it's decision apart from you?

 

Try this - same words as 5.2.2 in a slightly different order:

5.2.2 To a maximum of, and in addition to, the sails required to be on board in NOR 5.2.1(a) a Boat may carry on board:

 

Or this - substituting the phrase inclusive of for in addition to:

5.2.2 Inclusive of the sails required to be on board in NOR 5.2.1(a) a Boat may carry on board a maximum of:

Inclusive of is what they meant, in addition to is what they wrote.

Surely you can see the difference in their meaning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inclusive of is what they meant, in addition to is what they wrote.

They wrote and what they meant? Like I said why do the two major competitions n our sport end up in a shit fight like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inclusive of is what they meant, in addition to is what they wrote.

They wrote and what they meant? Like I said why do the two major competitions n our sport end up in a shit fight like this?

 

Because of the English language.

It's less precise and a lot of words have more than one meaning compared to say German language.

Why aren't the rules more precise?

Because sailing has traditionally accepted a variety of solutions in getting from A to B; the rules allow you to make choices.

 

I don't see it as a shit fight.

I like discussion; it's better than the dull silence or small talk you get when a bunch of people sit in front of a TV.

Indio and I might never agree. Maybe we'll laugh about it one day; maybe we won't.

Maybe we're both wrong - how would we ever know; wait for someone to tell us?

 

It's also because that's what sailing is.

Sometime you can out-think your opponent (usually and preferably on the course...) and sometimes you just have to out-work them.

Either path to victory is valid.

 

In terms of the bigger picture which is what I think you were actually referring to:

My cynical answer would be that successful men with big ego's realise that have limited opportunities to win and they lose sight of the simplicity of the sport and the humility that losing teaches you.

They choose to employ whatever means they have available to them to maximise their chances and that usually involves money and the law.

At some point two or more 'winners' are going to butt heads, so to speak, and at the end of it one of them becomes a 'loser'.

That's a lot of motivation for some people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to cut that down to a few lines. The sport has tried hard to make it more appealing right? We did that in the 80's with windsurfing. Look at the numbers at youth worlds in winsurfer and 29er and multi hull. Fuck all in all the avenues to make it more attracive. That is an undeniable fact. To have all this bullshit with rules and "interpretations", fuck me are we serious as a sport? Our percieved spokesman "Sir Russell" now agrees he has fucked up!

 

 

 

 

 

Inclusive of is what they meant, in addition to is what they wrote.

They wrote and what they meant? Like I said why do the two major competitions n our sport end up in a shit fight like this?

 

Because of the English language.

It's less precise and a lot of words have more than one meaning compared to say German language.

Why aren't the rules more precise?

Because sailing has traditionally accepted a variety of solutions in getting from A to B; the rules allow you to make choices.

 

I don't see it as a shit fight.

I like discussion; it's better than the dull silence or small talk you get when a bunch of people sit in front of a TV.

Indio and I might never agree. Maybe we'll laugh about it one day; maybe we won't.

Maybe we're both wrong - how would we ever know; wait for someone to tell us?

 

It's also because that's what sailing is.

Sometime you can out-think your opponent (usually and preferably on the course...) and sometimes you just have to out-work them.

Either path to victory is valid.

 

In terms of the bigger picture which is what I think you were actually referring to:

My cynical answer would be that successful men with big ego's realise that have limited opportunities to win and they lose sight of the simplicity of the sport and the humility that losing teaches you.

They choose to employ whatever means they have available to them to maximise their chances and that usually involves money and the law.

At some point two or more 'winners' are going to butt heads, so to speak, and at the end of it one of them becomes a 'loser'.

That's a lot of motivation for some people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth

I'm not trying to make a living from it so it's all just entertainment to me.

My view would be that it's never going to be very popular and I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to prove otherwise.

That doesn't make pitting your wits against the waves and wind (or watching other who are really good at it) any less fulfilling as far as I can see.

Juries interpret situations in ever race regatta.

The bigger the campaign is the more likely it is that you can get a good sailing lawyer to try and save you some time and money.

Stay away from big business if you don't like lawyers; it's not that hard unless of course you want to go play with the big dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently some people are struggling to see the ambiguity which to me seems quite clear.

 

snip

 

[/indent]Everyone was free to interpret the rule as Telefonica did.

 

That is very true, it was ambiguous, but while everyone was "free to interpret" it that way, Telefonica was the only boat to receive communication from someone within the overall Organizing Authority endorsing that interpretation.

 

Apparently some people are struggling to see why that was an improper action by the OA (through its agent, the CM of the VOR rule), which is grounds for redress to affected boats.

 

But seriously, this is all academic, they will find a reason not to give redress (probably arguing that the CM is not an official of the OA) and will sweep this screw-up (which very definitely benefitted Telefonica) under the rug. And yeah, this does happen in other sports as well. But while I agree Telefonica did nothing wrong, they still were unfairly benefitted, which puts an asterisk next to their leg 4 finish.

 

The way to read this could be the following: Telefonica, who were able to exploit a mistake by the racing authorities, was able to race with a unique suite of headsails, helping it secure third place by a matter of minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently some people are struggling to see the ambiguity which to me seems quite clear.

 

snip

 

[/indent]Everyone was free to interpret the rule as Telefonica did.

 

That is very true, it was ambiguous, but while everyone was "free to interpret" it that way, Telefonica was the only boat to receive communication from someone within the overall Organizing Authority endorsing that interpretation.

 

Apparently some people are struggling to see why that was an improper action by the OA (through its agent, the CM of the VOR rule), which is grounds for redress to affected boats.

 

But seriously, this is all academic, they will find a reason not to give redress (probably arguing that the CM is not an official of the OA) and will sweep this screw-up (which very definitely benefitted Telefonica) under the rug. And yeah, this does happen in other sports as well. But while I agree Telefonica did nothing wrong, they still were unfairly benefitted, which puts an asterisk next to their leg 4 finish.

 

The way to read this could be the following: Telefonica, who were able to exploit a mistake by the racing authorities, was able to race with a unique suite of headsails, helping it secure third place by a matter of minutes.

 

I'm in two minds about the effect of the endorsement.

I'm an advocate of transparency so I'd prefer if all questions and answers were published.

I don't know enough about sailing at this level to know whether that's the case or not?

In the F1 environment it isn't (for example).

BUT

All the boats were capable of seeking the same endorsement.

It's up to all boats to interpret the rules (and question their boat's legality) as they see fit.

i don't see why anyone other then the boats should be responsible for informing the boats about possible interpretations.

 

Put simply if the question and answer should have been published then redress is warranted.

If all Q & A's aren't published then I can't see a case for redress.

 

Of course if any other boat questioned 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 at any point before the 16th and was advised differently then there is definitely a case for redress.

 

Oh, and if I was in the Camper organisation and I'd asked my legal team to examine the rules at some point before the 16th then I might also be seeking redress from them (so to speak). :angry:

 

Another question in regard to redress - did Telefonica actually make a gain from their sail choice relative to Camper or were they actually disadvantaged (refer to video showing kites aloft down the coast to Auckland)?

A serious calculation of redress would involve both boats handing over sail logs and polars wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, there is the question "did they gain advantage or not", well, the easy argument is that if they didn't think it was an advantage, then they wouldn't have made that choice. The other argument is, even if after the fact, say it didn't work out as a good choice, it still was a choice not given to the other boats. Just having the option was an advantage.

 

Second, regarding who's "responsibility" it was to interpret the rule, well, all the other boats correctly interpreted the intent (or at least didn't bank on the wrong interpretation) and Telefonica and the Chief Measurer did not. Communication on minor points between a competitor and the RC happen all the time, where people ask for clarifications on the rules. That's normal. Usually it is trivial and no advantage comes from knowing that clarification. However, a very good, professional RC will publicly post on the notice board or announce answers to all questions. Specifically because it covers their ass in this instance of seeking redress, because some boats might see it as offering outside assistance.

 

Here is an analogy:

 

You have a race around an island, the NOR says "annual race around xyz island" and the SI, written by the new team just taking over from the old team, says "Start at X, round the island to port, end Y". Fine, but there is a long, submerged sand bar that extends a mile to the south of the island, it is 8-9 feet deep and all the boats draw 6-7 feet, there is a navigational bouy that marks the end of the sand bar, depending on the wind conditions, you may or may not want to cut inside the bouy. In years past, the bouy was listed as a mark of the course, but this time it isn't mentioned, it's shown on the chart of the course but not specifically mentioned as a markof the coarse. They made a mistake. Just before the race, competitor T asks the guy in the chase boat, "I notice the nav bouy isn't specifically listed as a mark of the course. Does that mean we can cut inside the bouy?", the guy in the chase boat says "the way I read it, yeah". Guy in chase boat says nothing to anybody else, he wasn't asked. Competitor T cuts out the bouy while everyone else goas around, and takes third place. They are protested for not following the course, but rightly point out that it was ambiguous and besides, the chase boat said they could. Protest thrown out (rightly). Competitor T did nothing "wrong", but were the other competitors finishes affected by the action of the chase boat? Definitely. Will they get redress? Maybe yes, maybe no, and maybe on a case by case basis yes or no. What would have been the right action? Chase boat gets asked the question, contacts the Committee boat, who signals to the fleet to come within hail or whatever, announces a course change to include the nav bouy as a mark on the course.

 

In Tele's case, the last several days were a beat into heavy air towards New Zealand, neck and neck with several competitors. You don't think a better selection of upwind heavy air headsails gave them an advantage? In this case the right thing to do would be the CM should have deferred to the RC, which should have announced a clarification to the rule based on the inquiry. Tele of course is being coy about it, because they knew this is they way it should have played out. Everybody else involved knows it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently some people are struggling to see the ambiguity which to me seems quite clear.

 

Firstly the applicable NOR clauses:

5.2 WHILE RACING

5.2.1

(a ) A Boat shall have on board 1 storm trysail, 1 storm jib and1 heavy weather jib (HWJ).

(b ) In an In-Port Race. Boats shall also have on board an In Port race spinnaker as described in NOR APPENDIX E.

(c ) The storm trysail shall only be used in case of safety or emergency and sheeted without a mainsail.

5.2.2 In addition to the sails required to be on board in NOR 5.2.1(a) a Boat may carry on board sails to a maximum of:

(a ) 1 Mainsail

(b ) 2 Headsails (which may include additional HWJ's and storm jibs)

(c ) 3 Spinnakers including 1 fractional spinnaker, which complies with Volvo Open 70 Rule v.3. Section 11.3.9. None of these 3 additional spinnakers can be an In Port race spinnaker as described in NOR APPENDIX E

(d ) 1 Staysail (SS). Only permitted on a leg.

And now the problem:

5.2.2
In addition to
the sails required to be on board in NOR 5.2.1(a) a Boat may carry on

board sails to a maximum of:

Another plain english way of saying the same thing:

As well as the required sails, you can also carry additional sails according to the following list...

Now I'd bet my life that's not how the rule was intended to be interpreted but given the way it was written it certainly can be.

The problem is the word addition and it's location in the sentence.

Instead of chopping together legalese from previously written rules elsewhere it could better have been written thus:

"The maximum number of sails allowed to be on board, including those listed in 5.2.1, shall be be no more than..."

 

Everyone was free to interpret the rule as Telefonica did.

Spec writer.

 

I'm honestly struggling to see what other possible interpretation could be derived from NOR 5.2 inclusive, as written. That Telefonica was given an interpretation prior to leaving Sanya is a given: for the IJ to now claim that the "application" of that interpretation conflicted with the RC interpretation of March 18th as the indication that 5.2 was "ambiguous" is unsustainable.

 

Telefonica was advised that the NOR "placed a minimums, not maximum, on the number of storm jibs which could be carried" - which is correct. 5.2.2b then qualifies this interpretation as to the status of any additional storm jib (or HWJ) to be carried. End of debate. "Ambiguity" is a cop-out by the IJ, whose credibility deserves the ridicule it has attracted.

Contractor.

 

Koukel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, there is the question "did they gain advantage or not", well, the easy argument is that if they didn't think it was an advantage, then they wouldn't have made that choice. The other argument is, even if after the fact, say it didn't work out as a good choice, it still was a choice not given to the other boats. Just having the option was an advantage.

 

Everyone has to make a sail choice before a leg.

No one knows whether that choice was wise or not until the leg is done.

Given that Tele didn't have an extra sail but a different combination the advantage isn't clear.

I bet you Iker would have preferred to have a deeper kite as Cmper closed in closer to the line; maybe that was the one he chose to substitute.

It's entirely possible that the 'extra' jib was never used and until we get more information I can't say there was an advantage because I don't know; that's all I'm saying.

 

Second, regarding who's "responsibility" it was to interpret the rule, well, all the other boats correctly interpreted the intent (or at least didn't bank on the wrong interpretation) and Telefonica and the Chief Measurer did not. Communication on minor points between a competitor and the RC happen all the time, where people ask for clarifications on the rules. That's normal. Usually it is trivial and no advantage comes from knowing that clarification. However, a very good, professional RC will publicly post on the notice board or announce answers to all questions. Specifically because it covers their ass in this instance of seeking redress, because some boats might see it as offering outside assistance.

 

There's no points for correctly interpreting the intent.

Neither interpretation more correct than the other prior to the clarification issued on the 18th.

 

The failure to inform other compeditiors is where I'd be seekign redress, but again I think you need to prove advantage at least to the satisfaction of the jury.

I'd think you'd also need to ask about every other clarification issued to every other boat to see if other boats had other similar advantages on the same leg if the modus operandi of the CM and RC is not to inform all compeditors of all questions and answers.

Unless the CM and RC are required to inform the competitors of all Q and As then redress seems unlikely.

 

Can - of - worms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand there is an actual sailboat race today. What time does this SA Sailgate court hearing go into recess?

At the warning signal, 10 minutes before the gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Golf Clap) Tele

 

Edit: That was hard to watch.

 

Really shows you what one little mistake can cascade into.

 

Can't get the kite down, can't get it in the boat, slow to raise the genoa, never get a full hoist, as a result they barely beat upwind at half boat speed to the windward mark they were supposed to round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You gotta admit, Tele did not do a lot of things wrong during this edition, but when they do, boy, they do it in style :)

 

 

 

M- and well done Groupama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of position trading on this one . Puma last to third, tele first to last , Camper back and forth and now up to second.

 

Update , puma crosses camper .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh! (I know I said I wouldn't do this)

5.2.1 sets out a minimum sail count of specific sails.

5.2.2 CAN be read to set out the number and combination of sails IN ADDITION TO 5.2.1 because the scentence starts with the phrase IN ADDITION TO and it does not specifically state that the sails in 5.2.1 are inclusive of that set (like it should and as you seem to believe).

That we (you vs the world) are arguing about it is the very definition of ambiguity, no?

We are indeed separated by a common language...This is my final attempt to explain why there can only be one interpretation, by paraphrasing the allegedly "ambiguous" rule as follows:

 

5.2.2b: In addition to the three compulsory sails (1 storm trysail, 1 storm jib, 1 HWJ), a boat MAY also carry the following maximum sails:

a: 1 mainsail

b: 2 headsails

c: 3 spinnakers

d: 1 staysail.

If a boat wishes to carry a second storm jib or HWJ, it will be counted (included) as one of the 2 headsails allowed.

Quite simple really....

 

"Ambiguous"

The IJ decision Conclusion 2.3 claims: "2.3 The interpretation emailed to the teams on 16th March conflicted with the interpretation previously applied by the Chief Measurer. This indicates that the meaning of NoR 5.2 is ambiguous." (This was the "interpretation" previously attributed to the poor Chief Measurer by the IJ). BUT this conclusion conflicts with the first reply in the very same "interpretation" Q&A emailed to all teams:

 

 

"Questions and Answers:

Sails on a Leg.

Q1. Has there been an official interpretation or Q & A issued previously about this issue?

A1. No."

 

So if there was no interpretation issued, there is no "ambiguity" by the IJ's own criterior which led to their conclusion, nor is there one in the English language used in the relevant NoRs.

 

As I've maintained all along, the IJ have fucked up badly. They have gone out of their way to create an environment which enabled them to ignore the merits of the protest: by doing so, the IJ is abdicating their legal obligations to enforce the rules they're charged to.

 

Telefonica cheated - they did not use a "loophole" because there was/is none. At best, they could claim not to have been able to understand the English composition, but this is tenuous because Groupama evidently had no problems interpreting the NoRs correctly. The protest should have been upheld.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Karma time . Tele goes from first to last as they round the wrong mark :o

 

You are so right. The ocean racing gods have decided to punish Tele for the leg 4 extra storm gib debacle. Good points for G4 anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, as far as I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong), the matter is as follows>

 

1. The rule is ambiguous or, at least, appears so to TLF.

 

2. TLF asks for clarification.

 

3. Clarification is given to them but not to everyone.

 

4. As per the rules, if anyone asks for clarification, the answer should be made public to the other teams.

 

5. This did not happen, the other teams did not know about the clarification given to TLF.

 

If this is so, nothing more, nothing less, something illegal happened, namely, the clarification not being made available to the other teams. If so, some sort of compensation must be found, either give a penalty to TLF or points to the others or allow them to sail a leg like TLF did. On the other hand, maybe TLF did not do anything wrong legally (maybe the mistake came from the organizers), but isn't it unsportmanslike?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, as far as I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong), the matter is as follows>

 

1. The rule is ambiguous or, at least, appears so to TLF.

 

2. TLF asks for clarification.

 

3. Clarification is given to them but not to everyone.

 

4. As per the rules, if anyone asks for clarification, the answer should be made public to the other teams.

 

5. This did not happen, the other teams did not know about the clarification given to TLF.

 

If this is so, nothing more, nothing less, something illegal happened, namely, the clarification not being made available to the other teams. If so, some sort of compensation must be found, either give a penalty to TLF or points to the others or allow them to sail a leg like TLF did. On the other hand, maybe TLF did not do anything wrong legally (maybe the mistake came from the organizers), but isn't it unsportmanslike?

 

Camper tried to claim compensation and, unsurprisingly, were told "Tough titties!!" by that collection of self-serving twats on the IJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites