• 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.

rodgibbs

WARNING ABOUT RED FLAG RULE

Recommended Posts

Interesting that the call Protest & "get the red flag out" was made the first time when the port tacker was still several lengths away. And the stb tacker did alter course slightly to windward before the cross and a voice ordered that. Tried to bluff the other boat to go to leeward & it didn't work.

 

18 seconds? about 120 metres apart when the flag went up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several instances of 'pathetic' in this situation. I don't believe the protest committee was one of the offending parties.

 

It is pathetic that the offending boat did not recognize they fouled the starboard boat and didn't take the appropriate penalty regardless.

 

It is pathetic that the starboard boat took 18 seconds to display a flag in a simple avoiding in a cross and meet their obligation to notify another boat of a protest in a timely manner.

 

It is pathetic that anyone thinks that taking 18 seconds to deploy a protest flag is acceptable.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that the call Protest & "get the red flag out" was made the first time when the port tacker was still several lengths away. And the stb tacker did alter course slightly to windward before the cross and a voice ordered that. Tried to bluff the other boat to go to leeward & it didn't work.

 

18 seconds? about 120 metres apart when the flag went up.

 

It seems that 'johnnysaint' hasn't watched the video very carefully. Nor does he seem to understand the port/starboard rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that the call Protest & "get the red flag out" was made the first time when the port tacker was still several lengths away. And the stb tacker did alter course slightly to windward before the cross and a voice ordered that. Tried to bluff the other boat to go to leeward & it didn't work.

 

18 seconds? about 120 metres apart when the flag went up.

 

It seems that 'johnnysaint' hasn't watched the video very carefully. Nor does he seem to understand the port/starboard rule.

Watched the video about 8 times and I very much understand the RRS, & obviously very much more than you do (unless you are just trolling).

 

If you are ROW boat you SHALL NOT change course to make it more difficult for the give way boat. Especially as the change of course in this video was premeditated (obvious by the audio) and the hail of protest and call to fly the flag was before any incident.

 

So whose sockpuppet are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are ROW boat you SHALL NOT change course to make it more difficult for the give way boat.

 

Erm maybe in COLREGS but under the RRS as long as you give them time to avoid (which in this case could have been achieved by tacking) yes you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are ROW boat you SHALL NOT change course to make it more difficult for the give way boat.

 

Erm maybe in COLREGS but under the RRS as long as you give them time to avoid (which in this case could have been achieved by tacking) yes you can.

 

ROOM - not time.

 

And ROOM means NOT changing course to deny them ROOM to keep clear.

 

And when you listen to the audio - that was obvious with the comments "come up".

 

Do you seriously think a boat with a spinnaker up should tack to avoid a ROW boat that is changing course to deny the port tack room to keep clear?

 

post-1322-030150000 1341271936_thumb.jpg

 

 

EDIT .... of further interest is that the video has been edited very recently at the 25 second point. Part of it deleted - the 1st call "protest" and the call for the red flag.

 

How does it go? "Oh what a tangled web we weave ------ etc"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First thing 18seconds in that example was plenty of time given all the crew on the rail and plenty of time to provide commentary about what happened etc.

 

However try a OD start with 20+ boats on the starting line and three total people on the boat every person with their hands full and a driver busy avoiding the fouling boat and avoiding becoming a foul boat while trying to recover from the original offenders big huge mistake. 18 seconds is not an appropriate window of time to fly the flag nor should it a protest be thrown out due to the flag not being flown within reasonable time of the event which is being protested. Especially when both skippers are fully 100% aware of what took place and that a skipper or boat is protesting another via a verbal complaint being hailed etc.

 

When a competitor fully in the wrong gets a protest tossed on the flag not being flown soon enough - said competitor should simply bow out of the race and take a DNF. Even worse is when you have a PRO in a non Professional OD class pull this shit which case he should see his pay check dwindle as his customer base move on to people who aren't total fuckwits on the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are ROW boat you SHALL NOT change course to make it more difficult for the give way boat.

 

Erm maybe in COLREGS but under the RRS as long as you give them time to avoid (which in this case could have been achieved by tacking) yes you can.

 

ROOM - not time.

 

And ROOM means NOT changing course to deny them ROOM to keep clear.

 

And when you listen to the audio - that was obvious with the comments "come up".

 

Do you seriously think a boat with a spinnaker up should tack to avoid a ROW boat that is changing course to deny the port tack room to keep clear?

 

post-1322-030150000 1341271936_thumb.jpg

 

 

EDIT .... of further interest is that the video has been edited very recently at the 25 second point. Part of it deleted - the 1st call "protest" and the call for the red flag.

 

How does it go? "Oh what a tangled web we weave ------ etc"

 

I was on board tigger and represented at the protest hearing

 

Before I make comment on the matter there is more evidence to consider

Also while it is quite clear from the audio he hailed "protest" it was not clear on board our boat, I thought I heard protest and looked for a flag for clarification,

No flag was seen by me and several others on board looking

I would suggest before you make your mind up as to what happened have a very close look at the course of share khan before after and during the incident and read the incident description attached

 

and before slagging off the PC I would urge you to consider that one of them I know to be an international juror. And that they might know what they were doing.

I would also urge you to consider why we have protest committees, and what fault of any boat it is to put such a matter before them.

2313_001 (1).pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are ROW boat you SHALL NOT change course to make it more difficult for the give way boat.

 

Erm maybe in COLREGS but under the RRS as long as you give them time to avoid (which in this case could have been achieved by tacking) yes you can.

 

ROOM - not time.

 

And ROOM means NOT changing course to deny them ROOM to keep clear.

 

And when you listen to the audio - that was obvious with the comments "come up".

 

Do you seriously think a boat with a spinnaker up should tack to avoid a ROW boat that is changing course to deny the port tack room to keep clear?

 

post-1322-030150000 1341271936_thumb.jpg

 

 

EDIT .... of further interest is that the video has been edited very recently at the 25 second point. Part of it deleted - the 1st call "protest" and the call for the red flag.

 

How does it go? "Oh what a tangled web we weave ------ etc"

 

I was on board tigger and represented at the protest hearing

 

Before I make comment on the matter there is more evidence to consider

Also while it is quite clear from the audio he hailed "protest" it was not clear on board our boat, I thought I heard protest and looked for a flag for clarification,

No flag was seen by me and several others on board looking

I would suggest before you make your mind up as to what happened have a very close look at the course of share khan before after and during the incident and read the incident description attached

 

and before slagging off the PC I would urge you to consider that one of them I know to be an international juror. And that they might know what they were doing.

I would also urge you to consider why we have protest committees, and what fault of any boat it is to put such a matter before them.

 

WTF? Aren't you reading these posts? or do you have a comprehension problem?

 

EDIT. Given what had been posted - and contrary to you - I have read them, I had pretty much made up my mind what happened.

 

This backs up what I was thinking - makes 18 seconds look the bullshit I took it to be.

post-1322-076191600 1341285167_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are ROW boat you SHALL NOT change course to make it more difficult for the give way boat.

 

Erm maybe in COLREGS but under the RRS as long as you give them time to avoid (which in this case could have been achieved by tacking) yes you can.

 

ROOM - not time.

 

And ROOM means NOT changing course to deny them ROOM to keep clear.

 

And when you listen to the audio - that was obvious with the comments "come up".

 

Do you seriously think a boat with a spinnaker up should tack to avoid a ROW boat that is changing course to deny the port tack room to keep clear?

 

post-1322-030150000 1341271936_thumb.jpg

 

 

EDIT .... of further interest is that the video has been edited very recently at the 25 second point. Part of it deleted - the 1st call "protest" and the call for the red flag.

 

How does it go? "Oh what a tangled web we weave ------ etc"

 

I was on board tigger and represented at the protest hearing

 

Before I make comment on the matter there is more evidence to consider

Also while it is quite clear from the audio he hailed "protest" it was not clear on board our boat, I thought I heard protest and looked for a flag for clarification,

No flag was seen by me and several others on board looking

I would suggest before you make your mind up as to what happened have a very close look at the course of share khan before after and during the incident and read the incident description attached

 

and before slagging off the PC I would urge you to consider that one of them I know to be an international juror. And that they might know what they were doing.

I would also urge you to consider why we have protest committees, and what fault of any boat it is to put such a matter before them.

 

WTF? Aren't you reading these posts? or do you have a comprehension problem?

 

oh johnny

just because I'm quoting you does not mean I'm arguing with you

my comment is addressed to all readers and follows on from your post because your comments are very relevant

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are ROW boat you SHALL NOT change course to make it more difficult for the give way boat.

 

Erm maybe in COLREGS but under the RRS as long as you give them time to avoid (which in this case could have been achieved by tacking) yes you can.

 

ROOM - not time.

 

And ROOM means NOT changing course to deny them ROOM to keep clear.

 

And when you listen to the audio - that was obvious with the comments "come up".

 

Do you seriously think a boat with a spinnaker up should tack to avoid a ROW boat that is changing course to deny the port tack room to keep clear?

 

post-1322-030150000 1341271936_thumb.jpg

 

 

EDIT .... of further interest is that the video has been edited very recently at the 25 second point. Part of it deleted - the 1st call "protest" and the call for the red flag.

 

How does it go? "Oh what a tangled web we weave ------ etc"

 

I was on board tigger and represented at the protest hearing

 

Before I make comment on the matter there is more evidence to consider

Also while it is quite clear from the audio he hailed "protest" it was not clear on board our boat, I thought I heard protest and looked for a flag for clarification,

No flag was seen by me and several others on board looking

I would suggest before you make your mind up as to what happened have a very close look at the course of share khan before after and during the incident and read the incident description attached

 

and before slagging off the PC I would urge you to consider that one of them I know to be an international juror. And that they might know what they were doing.

I would also urge you to consider why we have protest committees, and what fault of any boat it is to put such a matter before them.

 

WTF? Aren't you reading these posts? or do you have a comprehension problem?

 

EDIT. Given what had been posted - and contrary to you - I have read them, I had pretty much made up my mind what happened.

 

This backs up what I was thinking - makes 18 seconds look the bullshit I took it to be.

post-1322-076191600 1341285167_thumb.jpg

 

the footage was presented at the hearing as evidence and I got to see a longer version of it.

the time code did actually show that the flag was first raised at about 18 seconds, it also shows how far the boats had separated at that time, interestingly this is not included in the edit.

It also more clearly showed SK's course

IN the description on the form it is mentioned that a course change occurs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

oh johnny

just because I'm quoting you does not mean I'm arguing with you

my comment is addressed to all readers and follows on from your post because your comments are very relevant

 

Doesn't read that way bloke! Responding to a post in the way you did addresses me. Nobody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

the footage was presented at the hearing as evidence and I got to see a longer version of it.

the time code did actually show that the flag was first raised at about 18 seconds, it also shows how far the boats had separated at that time, interestingly this is not included in the edit.

It also more clearly showed SK's course

IN the description on the form it is mentioned that a course change occurs

So if the video was presented as evidence, then the protest was heard and not invalid as the OP tried to have us believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh johnny

just because I'm quoting you does not mean I'm arguing with you

my comment is addressed to all readers and follows on from your post because your comments are very relevant

 

Doesn't read that way bloke! Responding to a post in the way you did addresses me. Nobody else.

 

well hopefully that is now more clear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the footage was presented at the hearing as evidence and I got to see a longer version of it.

the time code did actually show that the flag was first raised at about 18 seconds, it also shows how far the boats had separated at that time, interestingly this is not included in the edit.

It also more clearly showed SK's course

IN the description on the form it is mentioned that a course change occurs

So if the video was presented as evidence, then the protest was heard and not invalid as the OP tried to have us believe.

 

it was provided as evidence for the consideration of whether the protest was valid.

the protest was found to be not valid (rule 61.1a)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh johnny

just because I'm quoting you does not mean I'm arguing with you

my comment is addressed to all readers and follows on from your post because your comments are very relevant

 

Doesn't read that way bloke! Responding to a post in the way you did addresses me. Nobody else.

 

well hopefully that is now more clear

 

Jesus! I'd hate to be NOT on your side then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the footage was presented at the hearing as evidence and I got to see a longer version of it.

the time code did actually show that the flag was first raised at about 18 seconds, it also shows how far the boats had separated at that time, interestingly this is not included in the edit.

It also more clearly showed SK's course

IN the description on the form it is mentioned that a course change occurs

So if the video was presented as evidence, then the protest was heard and not invalid as the OP tried to have us believe.

 

it was provided as evidence for the consideration of whether the protest was valid.

the protest was found to be not valid (rule 61.1a)

 

That is odd. The form has 30 seconds written on it. That would be enought to declare the protest invalid unless the protestor asked to change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the footage was presented at the hearing as evidence and I got to see a longer version of it.

the time code did actually show that the flag was first raised at about 18 seconds, it also shows how far the boats had separated at that time, interestingly this is not included in the edit.

It also more clearly showed SK's course

IN the description on the form it is mentioned that a course change occurs

So if the video was presented as evidence, then the protest was heard and not invalid as the OP tried to have us believe.

 

it was provided as evidence for the consideration of whether the protest was valid.

the protest was found to be not valid (rule 61.1a)

 

That is odd. The form has 30 seconds written on it. That would be enought to declare the protest invalid unless the protestor asked to change that.

 

he was invited to discuss what he had written, i.e "asap 30 sec" prior to them ruling on the validity. I think this was fair, particularly as he had evidence to present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee. I thought this thread was about the red flag rule.Thought the rule 10 infringement was obvious.

 

Now I see that ‘akasideshow’ from the protested boat isinferring that they were innocent. It’s amazing how the guilty can see black aswhite. He asks us to look at the course of SK thinking that this will exoneratehim. So I have done this several times.

 

It looks like the bow of SK is pretty much pointing tosomewhere between the Opera House and the south pylon of the bridge for atleast the last 50 meters before the call.

 

Looks like they were close hauled and would luff if theywent higher.

 

You can hear the sound of sheets eased to avoid collision.See the distance of Tiggers kite to SK’s spreaders even after they beared away.

 

On the other hand. Look at the course of Tigger. They cameup so high that their Kite was collapsing. Would have broached if there was astronger breeze.

 

The very simple rules of the water regardless of racingrules is that when on a collision course head to head you pass Port to Port.

 

Racing rules state that those on port give way to starboard.Where is the argument here.

 

Regardless of the angst shown here. Sydney Harbour looks like a pretty nice placeto sail.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee. I thought this thread was about the red flag rule.Thought the rule 10 infringement was obvious.

 

Now I see that ‘akasideshow’ from the protested boat isinferring that they were innocent. It’s amazing how the guilty can see black aswhite. He asks us to look at the course of SK thinking that this will exoneratehim. So I have done this several times.

 

It looks like the bow of SK is pretty much pointing tosomewhere between the Opera House and the south pylon of the bridge for atleast the last 50 meters before the call.

 

Looks like they were close hauled and would luff if theywent higher.

 

You can hear the sound of sheets eased to avoid collision.See the distance of Tiggers kite to SK’s spreaders even after they beared away.

 

On the other hand. Look at the course of Tigger. They cameup so high that their Kite was collapsing. Would have broached if there was astronger breeze.

 

The very simple rules of the water regardless of racingrules is that when on a collision course head to head you pass Port to Port.

 

Racing rules state that those on port give way to starboard.Where is the argument here.

 

Regardless of the angst shown here. Sydney Harbour looks like a pretty nice placeto sail.

Obvious you don't understand the RRS.

 

when on a collision course head to head you pass Port to Port.

 

No such rule in the RRS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee. I thought this thread was about the red flag rule.Thought the rule 10 infringement was obvious.

 

Now I see that 'akasideshow' from the protested boat isinferring that they were innocent. It's amazing how the guilty can see black aswhite. He asks us to look at the course of SK thinking that this will exoneratehim. So I have done this several times.

 

It looks like the bow of SK is pretty much pointing tosomewhere between the Opera House and the south pylon of the bridge for atleast the last 50 meters before the call.

 

Looks like they were close hauled and would luff if theywent higher.

 

You can hear the sound of sheets eased to avoid collision.See the distance of Tiggers kite to SK's spreaders even after they beared away.

 

On the other hand. Look at the course of Tigger. They cameup so high that their Kite was collapsing. Would have broached if there was astronger breeze.

 

The very simple rules of the water regardless of racingrules is that when on a collision course head to head you pass Port to Port.

 

Racing rules state that those on port give way to starboard.Where is the argument here.

 

Regardless of the angst shown here. Sydney Harbour looks like a pretty nice placeto sail.

 

 

 

I would suggest you read ISAF case 105 and consider with the statements made in the protest description. The protest not being heard, may have worked for SK in this instance.

Normally this would be very hard to prove but the fact it was stated by the protesting boat that they altered course towards tigger, purely because tigger was there, does not bode well for them.

The video seems to support this. Particularly the direction to the crew "Come up". And the course changes in the video.

the fact that They cameup so high that their Kite was collapsing. Would have broached if there was astronger breeze. as you say indicates we are taking avoiding action nothing more.

 

On the other hand case 50 puts tigger in a tough corner too, the outcome of this protest had it gone ahead is no way set in stone.

But I reiterate, consider what fault of any boat it is to put these situations before a protest committee.

 

Any rules guys out there willing to have a stab at the PC's potential interpretation. please go for it!

 

 

CASE 105

When two boats are running on opposite tacks, the starboard-tack boat may

change course provided she gives the port-tack boat room to keep clear.

 

CASE 50

When a protest committee finds that in a port-starboard incident S did not

change course and that there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension

of collision on the part of S, it should dismiss her protest. When the

committee finds that S did change course and that there was reasonable doubt

that P could have crossed ahead of S if S had not changed course, then P

should be disqualified.

Edit: Hang on a sec 105 isn't the right case here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee. I thought this thread was about the red flag rule.Thought the rule 10 infringement was obvious.

 

Now I see that 'akasideshow' from the protested boat isinferring that they were innocent. It's amazing how the guilty can see black aswhite. He asks us to look at the course of SK thinking that this will exoneratehim. So I have done this several times.

 

It looks like the bow of SK is pretty much pointing tosomewhere between the Opera House and the south pylon of the bridge for atleast the last 50 meters before the call.

 

Looks like they were close hauled and would luff if theywent higher.

 

You can hear the sound of sheets eased to avoid collision.See the distance of Tiggers kite to SK's spreaders even after they beared away.

 

On the other hand. Look at the course of Tigger. They cameup so high that their Kite was collapsing. Would have broached if there was astronger breeze.

 

The very simple rules of the water regardless of racingrules is that when on a collision course head to head you pass Port to Port.

 

Racing rules state that those on port give way to starboard.Where is the argument here.

 

Regardless of the angst shown here. Sydney Harbour looks like a pretty nice placeto sail.

 

 

 

I would suggest you read ISAF case 105 and consider with the statements made in the protest description. The protest not being heard, may have worked for SK in this instance.

Normally this would be very hard to prove but the fact it was stated by the protesting boat that they altered course towards tigger, purely because tigger was there, does not bode well for them.

The video seems to support this. Particularly the direction to the crew "Come up". And the course changes in the video.

the fact that They cameup so high that their Kite was collapsing. Would have broached if there was astronger breeze. as you say indicates we are taking avoiding action nothing more.

 

On the other hand case 50 puts tigger in a tough corner too, the outcome of this protest had it gone ahead is no way set in stone.

But I reiterate, consider what fault of any boat it is to put these situations before a protest committee.

 

Any rules guys out there willing to have a stab at the PC's potential interpretation. please go for it!

 

 

CASE 105

When two boats are running on opposite tacks, the starboard-tack boat may

change course provided she gives the port-tack boat room to keep clear.

 

CASE 50

When a protest committee finds that in a port-starboard incident S did not

change course and that there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension

of collision on the part of S, it should dismiss her protest. When the

committee finds that S did change course and that there was reasonable doubt

that P could have crossed ahead of S if S had not changed course, then P

should be disqualified.

Edit: Hang on a sec 105 isn't the right case here

 

 

Sorry,

 

Rule 16.1 is what i meant

 

16.1 When a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear.

 

As JS pointed out earlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still aka wants to exonerate their behaviour.

 

You have dug yourself in a hole aka. ISAF case 105 was agood one to quote here

 

ISAF Case 105: When two boats are running on opposite tacksthe starboard-tack boat may change course provided she gives the port-tack roomto keep clear.

 

SK had every right to come up and pass you to windward.

 

Room to keep clear means the starboard tacking boat (ROWboat) not ploughing into the side of you. It doesn’t mean you have a Right OfWay to cross in front of them, causing them to alter course.

 

You then edited that statement and quoted Rule 16.1 When a right of way boat changes course, sheshall give the other boat room to keep clear.

 

The same rule applies. SK gave room to keep clear by bearingaway and not colliding with you.

 

You then quoted ISAF CASE 50 that shows if there wasreasonable doubt that a boat on Port could not have crossed in front of a boaton Starboard without them having to alter course then the boat on a Port courseshould be disqualified.

 

If you listen to the video you will hear the familiar sound‘ERRRRR’ of SK’s sheets being eased to avoid collision. After they beared away,look how close your kite went to their spreaders. Then look at their courseturned down in relationship to the Opera House.

 

You should have done your turns and avoided all this.

 

It’s a worry having people out on the water thatmisinterpret the rules. Many collisions have occurred from people WANTING tobelieve they are in the right.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you listen to the video you will hear the familiar sound'ERRRRR' of SK's sheets being eased to avoid collision. "

 

Actually. It may not of been SK's sails being eased. After watching the video 10 or so times you can see the headsail doesn't alter shape, nor the main.

 

I'm just spit balling. But perhaps it could of been tigger?

 

 

Use the images as reference. I could be off, so don't eat my soul, but hey. Also the Kite was well over a boat length between the spreaders. Just video distortion perhaps?

post-60584-029326800 1341400650_thumb.jpg

post-60584-096905500 1341400744_thumb.jpg

post-60584-082682200 1341400753_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so floater

it seems pretty obvious to all of us reading this that you you have a vested interest

might i once again reiterate what is wrong with any boat to take it to the PC

 

the protest was dismissed the matter should have ended there some time ago

However while you bring it up

We sail within the rules All of the rules not just the ones that you think are relevant

 

after you and your skipper thought it was right to put this on a public forum

did you consider how much it would aggravate or besmirch those involved?

 

you obviously still feel aggrieved, that does certainly not mean you are right

 

is this the right forum to bring up that while sailing under cat 7 reg you were found to not have an anchor on board

when your rudder failed and you needed assistance getting home

 

I seem to remember comments of "sportsmanship" and the like

 

how many races has Share Khan sailed without an anchor ?

What else do you leave at the dock thats part of cat 7 requirements

are you willing to tell us ? or was it just a rare coincidence

and how many times should she RAF if it was just an "honest mistake"

(assuming all on board are happy to sail within the RRS)

 

if we're bringing up dirty laundry yours smells pretty rank

 

its one thing to WANT to be right, the PC make that clear for us

its a whole other thing to take it off the water to a whole different level and try and implicate a (now past ) friend in dodgy wrong doings on a public forurm

while your own credibility is dubious at best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still aka wants to exonerate their behaviour.

 

You have dug yourself in a hole aka. ISAF case 105 was agood one to quote here

 

ISAF Case 105: When two boats are running on opposite tacksthe starboard-tack boat may change course provided she gives the port-tack roomto keep clear.

 

SK had every right to come up and pass you to windward.

 

Room to keep clear means the starboard tacking boat (ROWboat) not ploughing into the side of you. It doesn't mean you have a Right OfWay to cross in front of them, causing them to alter course.

 

You then edited that statement and quoted Rule 16.1 When a right of way boat changes course, sheshall give the other boat room to keep clear.

 

The same rule applies. SK gave room to keep clear by bearingaway and not colliding with you.

 

You then quoted ISAF CASE 50 that shows if there wasreasonable doubt that a boat on Port could not have crossed in front of a boaton Starboard without them having to alter course then the boat on a Port courseshould be disqualified.

 

If you listen to the video you will hear the familiar sound'ERRRRR' of SK's sheets being eased to avoid collision. After they beared away,look how close your kite went to their spreaders. Then look at their courseturned down in relationship to the Opera House.

 

You should have done your turns and avoided all this.

 

It's a worry having people out on the water thatmisinterpret the rules. Many collisions have occurred from people WANTING tobelieve they are in the right.

 

 

 

no

as I thought was quite clear SK came up purely because T was there this relates to case 60

and when reading the cases scroll down and read the whole case not just the abstract

 

you are right though

we should have done turns because I really enjoyed the friendship that our two boats have had for the last few years

I really didn't think you guys would b e such dicks about this

if I thought it would come to this we would have backed out of the season

friends are the worst of enemies apparently

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still aka wants to exonerate their behaviour.

 

You have dug yourself in a hole aka. ISAF case 105 was agood one to quote here

 

ISAF Case 105: When two boats are running on opposite tacksthe starboard-tack boat may change course provided she gives the port-tack roomto keep clear.

 

SK had every right to come up and pass you to windward.

 

Room to keep clear means the starboard tacking boat (ROWboat) not ploughing into the side of you. It doesn't mean you have a Right OfWay to cross in front of them, causing them to alter course.

 

You then edited that statement and quoted Rule 16.1 When a right of way boat changes course, sheshall give the other boat room to keep clear.

 

The same rule applies. SK gave room to keep clear by bearingaway and not colliding with you.

 

You then quoted ISAF CASE 50 that shows if there wasreasonable doubt that a boat on Port could not have crossed in front of a boaton Starboard without them having to alter course then the boat on a Port courseshould be disqualified.

 

If you listen to the video you will hear the familiar sound'ERRRRR' of SK's sheets being eased to avoid collision. After they beared away,look how close your kite went to their spreaders. Then look at their courseturned down in relationship to the Opera House.

 

You should have done your turns and avoided all this.

 

It's a worry having people out on the water thatmisinterpret the rules. Many collisions have occurred from people WANTING tobelieve they are in the right.

 

 

 

no

as I thought was quite clear SK came up purely because T was there this relates to case 60

and when reading the cases scroll down and read the whole case not just the abstract

 

you are right though

we should have done turns because I really enjoyed the friendship that our two boats have had for the last few years

I really didn't think you guys would b e such dicks about this

if I thought it would come to this we would have backed out of the season

friends are the worst of enemies apparently

 

might I add, before the thread disintegrates much further that many of the crew of SK I count as friends,

and I feel terrible for dragging them into this shit

my beef is only with a select few knobs that seem to have their own grasp on the RRS and being obnoxious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears to be an evening beer can race? Also, it appears that Tigger was well ahead? If so, none of SK's actions make sense. Was their humiliation and embarrassment so great that this was their revenge? My favorite is when they called Tigger "stupid." Well, stupid appears to be kicking your ass. In the future, show some sportsmanship.

 

If my assumptions are incorrect and this was the equivalent of the AC, I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this thread about how much time is allowed to fly the flag in a given situation? It sure seems to me that the protest should have been heard. Tigger says they didn't see a flag, did they stop looking for one after 17 seconds? Dangerous.

All the other stuff about whether or not there was a foul should have been determined by the PC. Given the evidence, do you think the port tack boat would have had a credible argument that the flag was late had the PC allowed the protest? I'd have a hard time faulting the committee if they went ahead with the protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this thread about how much time is allowed to fly the flag in a given situation? It sure seems to me that the protest should have been heard. Tigger says they didn't see a flag, did they stop looking for one after 17 seconds? Dangerous.

All the other stuff about whether or not there was a foul should have been determined by the PC. Given the evidence, do you think the port tack boat would have had a credible argument that the flag was late had the PC allowed the protest? I'd have a hard time faulting the committee if they went ahead with the protest.

 

 

Now referring to my image, and to the actual video, not the video that was placed on youtube as that was different from the protest hearing.

What people don't see is the person holding the flag at 17 seconds was wearing red gloves, the Audi flag on the back of the boat was red, as well as the protest flag.

 

Assuming my math is alright with the distance over time table.

 

Say tigger is doing 9-10 knots on kite. (I'll say 9.5)

 

Following the table 17.632km/h X 17 = 299.744.

 

So at 299.744m if you can tell a 10cm2 square from a red glove or from a red Audi flag you sir have some amazing sight.

post-60584-040787600 1341452302_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this thread about how much time is allowed to fly the flag in a given situation? It sure seems to me that the protest should have been heard. Tigger says they didn't see a flag, did they stop looking for one after 17 seconds? Dangerous.

All the other stuff about whether or not there was a foul should have been determined by the PC. Given the evidence, do you think the port tack boat would have had a credible argument that the flag was late had the PC allowed the protest? I'd have a hard time faulting the committee if they went ahead with the protest.

 

 

Assuming my math is alright with the distance over time table.

 

Say tigger is doing 9-10 knots on kite. (I'll say 9.5)

 

Following the table 17.632km/h X 17 = 299.744.

 

So at 299.744m if you can tell a 10cm2 square from a red glove or from a red Audi flag you sir have some amazing sight.

It's not. The simplest rule of thumb is 1kt equals .5m/s. So assume Tigger is doing 9kts downwind, and SK is doing 6kts up, you have a separation of 15kts or 7.5m/s. 7.5 x 17 = 127.5 m. Still agree with your conclusion.

 

Look at your units, you calculated km-s/hr?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this thread about how much time is allowed to fly the flag in a given situation? It sure seems to me that the protest should have been heard. Tigger says they didn't see a flag, did they stop looking for one after 17 seconds? Dangerous.

All the other stuff about whether or not there was a foul should have been determined by the PC. Given the evidence, do you think the port tack boat would have had a credible argument that the flag was late had the PC allowed the protest? I'd have a hard time faulting the committee if they went ahead with the protest.

 

 

Assuming my math is alright with the distance over time table.

 

Say tigger is doing 9-10 knots on kite. (I'll say 9.5)

 

Following the table 17.632km/h X 17 = 299.744.

 

So at 299.744m if you can tell a 10cm2 square from a red glove or from a red Audi flag you sir have some amazing sight.

It's not. The simplest rule of thumb is 1kt equals .5m/s. So assume Tigger is doing 9kts downwind, and SK is doing 6kts up, you have a separation of 15kts or 7.5m/s. 7.5 x 17 = 127.5 m. Still agree with your conclusion.

 

Look at your units, you calculated km-s/hr?

 

 

Yeah, my mistake. Just found it easier to turn the knots into km/h then make the result from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this thread about how much time is allowed to fly the flag in a given situation? It sure seems to me that the protest should have been heard. Tigger says they didn't see a flag, did they stop looking for one after 17 seconds? Dangerous.

All the other stuff about whether or not there was a foul should have been determined by the PC. Given the evidence, do you think the port tack boat would have had a credible argument that the flag was late had the PC allowed the protest? I'd have a hard time faulting the committee if they went ahead with the protest.

 

 

Now referring to my image, and to the actual video, not the video that was placed on youtube as that was different from the protest hearing.

What people don't see is the person holding the flag at 17 seconds was wearing red gloves, the Audi flag on the back of the boat was red, as well as the protest flag.

 

Assuming my math is alright with the distance over time table.

 

Say tigger is doing 9-10 knots on kite. (I'll say 9.5)

 

Following the table 17.632km/h X 17 = 299.744.

 

So at 299.744m if you can tell a 10cm2 square from a red glove or from a red Audi flag you sir have some amazing sight.

 

 

 

Ah, I assumed the red flag in the vid was the protest flag. Still, I think the protest should have been heard. Would you have had a problem wit the PC if the protest was determined to be valid? 17 seconds? That's reasonably primp in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this thread about how much time is allowed to fly the flag in a given situation? It sure seems to me that the protest should have been heard. Tigger says they didn't see a flag, did they stop looking for one after 17 seconds? Dangerous.

All the other stuff about whether or not there was a foul should have been determined by the PC. Given the evidence, do you think the port tack boat would have had a credible argument that the flag was late had the PC allowed the protest? I'd have a hard time faulting the committee if they went ahead with the protest.

 

 

Now referring to my image, and to the actual video, not the video that was placed on youtube as that was different from the protest hearing.

What people don't see is the person holding the flag at 17 seconds was wearing red gloves, the Audi flag on the back of the boat was red, as well as the protest flag.

 

Assuming my math is alright with the distance over time table.

 

Say tigger is doing 9-10 knots on kite. (I'll say 9.5)

 

Following the table 17.632km/h X 17 = 299.744.

 

So at 299.744m if you can tell a 10cm2 square from a red glove or from a red Audi flag you sir have some amazing sight.

 

 

 

Ah, I assumed the red flag in the vid was the protest flag. Still, I think the protest should have been heard. Would you have had a problem wit the PC if the protest was determined to be valid? 17 seconds? That's reasonably primp in my opinion.

 

I have no qualms with the protest being heard. It would of been an interesting experience let alone case. However that, what is done is done. There really is no point arguing with such argument.

As it has been said before, the video on youtube was far from the original. You missed the SK crew spending 10-20 seconds looking for their flag.

The point still stands that its over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am unfortunately the guilty one of posting this thread. When I did so I hoped it would create discussion about the red flag rule.Hearing discussions around a couple of clubs, by far the majority didn't know how critical the timing was. I wanted to let everyone know.

What I didn't want was to create a character assassination of Tigger and her crew. All of whom are very fine people.

If any of them are offended I apologize.

Incidentally Shere Khan has never left the dock without the anchor. After her broken rudder incident CYCA did a spot check and found all in order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Regarding RRS 61.1: It has become the common practice of protest committees to require the red flag to be deployed immediately. Committees seem to grasp at any opportunity to deny the validity of protests: I cannot find any appeal case or Q&A to support this interpretation. It seems to contradict the very words of RRS 61.1 (i) "if the other boat is beyond hailing distance, the protesting boat need not hail but she shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity." After all, the purpose is to inform the other boat, so she can choose to absolve herself by taking a penalty. Committees seem to be applying the much tighter standards of match racing to fleet racing. I would like to know what other SA readers think of this.

 

2. Assuming SK's protest should be accepted as valid, then based on the video I would have little difficulty finding that Tigger did not keep clear. The last minute bearing away by SK was entirely reasonable and seamanlike. Tigger seemed to be standing on as though she had calculated some "near miss", and made no attempt to keep clear. (case 88). The slight change of course to windward by SK when about 3 boat lengths from Tigger allowed Tigger ample room to keep clear.

 

Until there is some clarification of the rule regarding flag display, we should all keep our red flags wound onto the backstay ready for immediate deployment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Regarding RRS 61.1: It has become the common practice of protest committees to require the red flag to be deployed immediately. Committees seem to grasp at any opportunity to deny the validity of protests: I cannot find any appeal case or Q&A to support this interpretation. It seems to contradict the very words of RRS 61.1 (i) "if the other boat is beyond hailing distance, the protesting boat need not hail but she shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity." After all, the purpose is to inform the other boat, so she can choose to absolve herself by taking a penalty. Committees seem to be applying the much tighter standards of match racing to fleet racing. I would like to know what other SA readers think of this.

 

2. Assuming SK's protest should be accepted as valid, then based on the video I would have little difficulty finding that Tigger did not keep clear. The last minute bearing away by SK was entirely reasonable and seamanlike. Tigger seemed to be standing on as though she had calculated some "near miss", and made no attempt to keep clear. (case 88). The slight change of course to windward by SK when about 3 boat lengths from Tigger allowed Tigger ample room to keep clear.

 

Until there is some clarification of the rule regarding flag display, we should all keep our red flags wound onto the backstay ready for immediate deployment.

Many boats do not have a back stay these days. Also with 3 crew which is standard in the growing SB fleets you have fewer people to handle the task of getting the flag up especially in a crowded start etc.

I've found that having one crew having the red flag on his body within easy reach for a one handed pull and wave of the flag is a must especially with this growing trend of RC's looking for any excuse to toss a protest which I do fully agree that there does seem to be a growing trend of RC's handling standard racing and event protests much like one would handle Match racing between two boats with no other racing traffic on the race course which is something that should be looked into as we see fleets like the viper grow into a size where the driver and two crew easily find them selves with their hands full managing the boat first then at first opportunity they can will be flying a protest flag.

 

I for one do not want people running into me because they were fouled in a bad way and were too busy trying to fly their protest flag so a proper protest will be heard in the room all while their boat now due to being fouled has ended up in a bad spot and is a major foul threat to other boats around them. I've been there and had this happen with lots of witnesses I was never called to the room as the owner of the boat who protested nor were several of the other boats who were impacted but did not protest listed as witnesses - the protested boat was heard AKA sail maker and I was then informed that the protest was thrown out on this Red flag rule. Needless to say I sold my boat left the class and have just seen that the pro is getting out of the class. I am very tempted to rejoin the class again in a couple of years when my kids get older and can race with Mom and Dad.

 

Simply put when your clearly in the wrong and have fouled someone or possibly multiple boats - the right thing to do is take your lumps and move on - the reason our rule book is so thick today - is because of people who think fouling others only applies to other people and not them.

 

Match racing is a tactical game on the water where the best rule player wins and you have only one other boat on the course to contend with. Fleet racing has a whole added level of having many boats on the race course to contend with not just one boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Regarding RRS 61.1: It has become the common practice of protest committees to require the red flag to be deployed immediately. Committees seem to grasp at any opportunity to deny the validity of protests: I cannot find any appeal case or Q&A to support this interpretation. It seems to contradict the very words of RRS 61.1 (i) "if the other boat is beyond hailing distance, the protesting boat need not hail but she shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity." After all, the purpose is to inform the other boat, so she can choose to absolve herself by taking a penalty. Committees seem to be applying the much tighter standards of match racing to fleet racing. I would like to know what other SA readers think of this.

 

2. Assuming SK's protest should be accepted as valid, then based on the video I would have little difficulty finding that Tigger did not keep clear. The last minute bearing away by SK was entirely reasonable and seamanlike. Tigger seemed to be standing on as though she had calculated some "near miss", and made no attempt to keep clear. (case 88). The slight change of course to windward by SK when about 3 boat lengths from Tigger allowed Tigger ample room to keep clear.

 

Until there is some clarification of the rule regarding flag display, we should all keep our red flags wound onto the backstay ready for immediate deployment.

Many boats do not have a back stay these days. Also with 3 crew which is standard in the growing SB fleets you have fewer people to handle the task of getting the flag up especially in a crowded start etc.

I've found that having one crew having the red flag on his body within easy reach for a one handed pull and wave of the flag is a must especially with this growing trend of RC's looking for any excuse to toss a protest which I do fully agree that there does seem to be a growing trend of RC's handling standard racing and event protests much like one would handle Match racing between two boats with no other racing traffic on the race course which is something that should be looked into as we see fleets like the viper grow into a size where the driver and two crew easily find them selves with their hands full managing the boat first then at first opportunity they can will be flying a protest flag.

 

I for one do not want people running into me because they were fouled in a bad way and were too busy trying to fly their protest flag so a proper protest will be heard in the room all while their boat now due to being fouled has ended up in a bad spot and is a major foul threat to other boats around them. I've been there and had this happen with lots of witnesses I was never called to the room as the owner of the boat who protested nor were several of the other boats who were impacted but did not protest listed as witnesses - the protested boat was heard AKA sail maker and I was then informed that the protest was thrown out on this Red flag rule. Needless to say I sold my boat left the class and have just seen that the pro is getting out of the class. I am very tempted to rejoin the class again in a couple of years when my kids get older and can race with Mom and Dad.

 

Simply put when your clearly in the wrong and have fouled someone or possibly multiple boats - the right thing to do is take your lumps and move on - the reason our rule book is so thick today - is because of people who think fouling others only applies to other people and not them.

 

Match racing is a tactical game on the water where the best rule player wins and you have only one other boat on the course to contend with. Fleet racing has a whole added level of having many boats on the race course to contend with not just one boat.

 

I disagree that any PC (or RC as you called it) are "looking for any excuse to toss a protest". Why would they?

 

What they are doing is ensuring that the boat being protested has, without doubt, been notified, according to the RRS, that they are being protested and therefore have the opportunity to do the penalty turns if they so choose. If the PC is not satisfied of that then they MUST declare the protest invalid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this looks like a lot of well played sea-lawyering to get around the fact the couldn't cross a starboard boat. Well done.

 

It's a bit sad Tigger didn't just do their turns and avoid the whole mess. The very fact that AKAsideshow says they were watching for a flag tells me they knew they fucked up.

 

I'm happy to know I race on a boat that spins, even if we don't see a flag. I'd rather lose a few spots and feel good about myself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like typical Sydney behavior on the water: Unless someone pulls a gun out there will be no admission of even the most blatant rules violations on the racecourse. Real shame really.................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is simple. Put the flag up prestart on a BS "failure to keep clear" call so the flag is always flying. There is no requirement to show a second or subsequest call. If nothing happens on the course requiring a protest, just don't file the BS prestart protest and it all goes away. That way, you can never be accused of not flying the flag in time.

 

The concept of fair sailing and corinthian sportmanship is long gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The answer is simple. Put the flag up prestart on a BS "failure to keep clear" call so the flag is always flying.

'xactly so. Which is why the arguments about "only the flag tells you are being protested" are not really valid. Come to think of it, is there any rule that prevents you keeping a flag permanently flying anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1341309574[/url]' post='3773785']

 

 

Regardless of the angst shown here. Sydney Harbour looks like a pretty nice placeto sail.

 

 

 

It is.....but in the interests of your own safety.....stay the fuck away from SK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a friend was fucked by a similar protest decision he built a quick-deploy protest flag that could be whipped out by pulling a short length of cord. Years later when they protested another boat the protested team tried to make the argument that the flag wasn't flown in time. As a response he pulled out the device, which he brought to the room, and demonstrated it deploying in half a second. The PC, duly impressed, ignored the offenders argument and threw them out.

 

Sad that you had to learn that lesson this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1341687261[/url]' post='3778339']

After a friend was fucked by a similar protest decision he built a quick-deploy protest flag that could be whipped out by pulling a short length of cord. Years later when they protested another boat the protested team tried to make the argument that the flag wasn't flown in time. As a response he pulled out the device, which he brought to the room, and demonstrated it deploying in half a second. The PC, duly impressed, ignored the offenders argument and threw them out.

 

Sad that you had to learn that lesson this way.

 

That would imply they learned a lesson. Others could be less optimistic with good reason.

I'd like to know if the mark SK was approaching and Tigger was leaving was (as is often the case on Sydney 'abour) a stbd rounding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to know if the mark SK was approaching and Tigger was leaving was (as is often the case on Sydney 'abour) a stbd rounding?

Evo,

It sure looks like it. I said it earlier, SK was getting their ass kicked and rather than behave as gentlemen, hunted Tigger and then screamed protest. This was a beer can race for God's sake. Childish to say the least. I think it took them 18s to get the flag posted because several of SK's crew were thinking, are you serious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is....they're serious alright...when it suits them to be so. This whinge from them here is almost LB like in it's hypocrisy.

 

Best advice is to see them (ya hearing this Leon?) and stay far away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to know if the mark SK was approaching and Tigger was leaving was (as is often the case on Sydney 'abour) a stbd rounding?

Evo,

It sure looks like it. I said it earlier, SK was getting their ass kicked and rather than behave as gentlemen, hunted Tigger and then screamed protest. This was a beer can race for God's sake. Childish to say the least. I think it took them 18s to get the flag posted because several of SK's crew were thinking, are you serious?

 

 

If you want to hurl abuse "isma" try inserting some facts: Tigger started 3 minutes ahead of SK, and that difference held for the race with SK taking 20 seconds out of Tigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to know if the mark SK was approaching and Tigger was leaving was (as is often the case on Sydney 'abour) a stbd rounding?

Evo,

It sure looks like it. I said it earlier, SK was getting their ass kicked and rather than behave as gentlemen, hunted Tigger and then screamed protest. This was a beer can race for God's sake. Childish to say the least. I think it took them 18s to get the flag posted because several of SK's crew were thinking, are you serious?

 

 

If you want to hurl abuse "isma" try inserting some facts: Tigger started 3 minutes ahead of SK, and that difference held for the race with SK taking 20 seconds out of Tigger.

 

In what bizarre world do you start two like boats 3 minutes apart? No wonder you only borrowed the cup for a few years. Still a chckenshit move by SK so fuck off in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites