• 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.

Indio

Jury Notices & Decisions Thread

Recommended Posts

Here we go again: Artemis has filed an application against the Jury's decision which over-ruled PI22 and ruled in favour of ETNZ - and which also cost AR EURO10k in costs:

 

1. On 22nd October 2012, the Jury received an Application from Artemis Racing, representing Kungliga Svenska Segel Sällskapet (KSSS).

 

2. Artemis Racing (AR) in its Application requested a ruling that the Jury amended the AC72 Class Rule (CR) and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued its Decision in Case AC16 (JN051). The Jury Decision in JN051 determined that the Measurement Committee (MC) had exceeded its jurisdiction in Public Interpretation No 22 (PI 22)

 

This is a non-runner for AR: the Jury is empowered under the Protocol to substitute its decision for an MC interpretation which contradicts the Protocol and/or the AC72 Class Rule.

 

We should try to keep all Jury matters in this thread so we can find it quickly.

 

JN052.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for starting this thread. I think your reasoning for it being a non runner is incorrect. The AR argument seems to be that while the jury has the powers you point out under 15.4(f), those powers do not extend to changing the class rules. AR are arguing that the jury decision is not an interpretation but a change in the rules. If they successfully argue that, then the decision in case AC16(JN051) is void.

 

I don't think it will succeed, but I can see the angle they are coming from. Where this will get interesting is that I am sure that ETNZ will submit that this wasn't a change in the rules, and, I suspect, so will LR. The question is what, if anything, OR will submit. I sense some real dirty tricks coming on, because what they are really trying to do is to screw ETNZ. This could get interesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

remember

 

everyone wants to keep the AC out of the courts this time

 

unless, like ernie, there's some gaming to be done

 

post-23477-0-63122400-1351156697_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk about a last-ditch stand. Under the Protocol there is no higher authority to appeal to so Artemis is flicking it back at the Jury together with copies to every party they can conjure up. The only parties they missed were MSP, Sailing Anarchy and the New York Times!

 

"The Application was filed on 22nd October 2012 by AR on jurycomms@americascup.com and sent to the Trustee, the Competitors, America’s Cup Race Management (ACRM), America’s Cup Event Authority (ACEA), the Chief Measurer and the Umpire Team Director (‘the Parties’)."

 

As I see it, the Jury could have rejected this appeal out of hand. "Our ruling is final!" However they have opened he door to a new round of submissions. It will be interesting to see what GGYC (the Trustee) has to say. And I suspect that Luna Rossa will weigh in with something more substantive this time.

 

I have a tough time seeing this as a change in the rules; thus, case dismissed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, as I understood it the jury's ruling cannot be appealed let alone overruled.

This is a REALLY strong indication that ETNZ have got AR rattled as all hell.

If they didn't think they were miles behind the ball game, they would just STFU and get on with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, as I understood it the jury's ruling cannot be appealed let alone overruled.

This is a REALLY strong indication that ETNZ have got AR rattled as all hell.

If they didn't think they were miles behind the ball game, they would just STFU and get on with it.

 

No just like designers have to design and builders have to build, rules guys have to submit stuff like this. It's just what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jury Decision being contested by AR:

 

 

DECISION

59. The measurement condition referred to in Class Rule 1.4(k) is as specified in Class Rule 25.1, and excludes the additional requirements specified in Class Rule 25.2, which are additional requirements required only for the determination of MWP.

60. Under Protocol 15.4(f) the Jury determines that the Measurement Committee has, in PI 22, amended the Class Rule and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction. PI 22 is an invalid interpretation and the Measurement Committee is directed to withdraw it.

61. The Jury determines pursuant to Protocol Article 15.4(f) that daggerboards may be retracted when calculating the percentage of displaced volume of the canoe bodies when determining compliance with the definition of “hull” in Class Rule 1.4(k).

 

JN051.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AR says that the Jury changed the rule when they said that ETNZ was right when they said that the MC changed the rule when they made a interpretation that AR asked for in the first place....

 

But they are wrong! :wacko:

 

Just wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jury Decision being contested by AR:

 

 

DECISION

59. The measurement condition referred to in Class Rule 1.4(k) is as specified in Class Rule 25.1, and excludes the additional requirements specified in Class Rule 25.2, which are additional requirements required only for the determination of MWP.

60. Under Protocol 15.4(f) the Jury determines that the Measurement Committee has, in PI 22, amended the Class Rule and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction. PI 22 is an invalid interpretation and the Measurement Committee is directed to withdraw it.

61. The Jury determines pursuant to Protocol Article 15.4(f) that daggerboards may be retracted when calculating the percentage of displaced volume of the canoe bodies when determining compliance with the definition of “hull” in Class Rule 1.4(k).

 

JN051.pdf

 

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Desperate times call for desperate measures basically.

The desperation comes from OR who has their wrist up AR's butt pushing them. ORTUSA will have a response supporting AR's application very shortly: then we'll have ORTUSA lodging an application seeking relief for their repairs to OR17/1....

 

.... I hate this crap It brings the whole sport into disrepute

:lol: :lol: ..that sentiment went down the toilet about 20 years ago...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jury Decision being contested by AR:

 

 

DECISION

59. The measurement condition referred to in Class Rule 1.4(k) is as specified in Class Rule 25.1, and excludes the additional requirements specified in Class Rule 25.2, which are additional requirements required only for the determination of MWP.

60. Under Protocol 15.4(f) the Jury determines that the Measurement Committee has, in PI 22, amended the Class Rule and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction. PI 22 is an invalid interpretation and the Measurement Committee is directed to withdraw it.

61. The Jury determines pursuant to Protocol Article 15.4(f) that daggerboards may be retracted when calculating the percentage of displaced volume of the canoe bodies when determining compliance with the definition of “hull” in Class Rule 1.4(k).

 

JN051.pdf

 

?

 

measurement water plane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AR's appeal against the Jury's decision in favour of ETNZ's application against PI22 stinks of desperation. They're clearly hanging their hat on 15.4:The Jury shall act both as a jury under the RRSAC and as an arbitral body, with the following powers:

(a) to resolve all matters of interpretation of the Rules other than the class rules in Article 13.1© except as provided in Article 15.4(f);

....

(f) where the Jury finds the Measurement Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction or broken a Rule, it may substitute its determination for the Measurement Committee’s;

 

15.4(f) provides the authority for the Jury to order the withdrawal of PI22 and substitute the MC's interpretation with their own - and AR have the audacity to claim the Jury "exceeded its jurisdiction"!

 

Given their current predicaments, I wonder whether ORTUSA will bother supporting the poodle in an action with potentially more downsides than upsides...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, as I understood it the jury's ruling cannot be appealed let alone overruled.

This is a REALLY strong indication that ETNZ have got AR rattled as all hell.

If they didn't think they were miles behind the ball game, they would just STFU and get on with it.

 

No just like designers have to design and builders have to build, rules guys have to submit stuff like this. It's just what they do.

 

How true. Melinda Erkelens' spending power from her days in OR and AC33 must have dropped a bit so she's racking up her billables to regain parity :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Protocol Article 29.9. Measurement Committee Interpretation

(a) The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications.

 

Article 1.6, defines the words “shall” and “must” as mandatory.

 

To date, the Measurement Committee have not issued any interpretations of the specified Articles, and considering that Art. 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 have specific application to ORTUSA's repairs to OR17/1, could this cause potential delays to the repairs? Could OR claim being disadvantaged because the MC have failed to perform a mandatory requirement under the Protocol?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Protocol Article 29.9. Measurement Committee Interpretation

(a) The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications.

 

Article 1.6, defines the words “shall” and “must” as mandatory.

 

To date, the Measurement Committee have not issued any interpretations of the specified Articles, and considering that Art. 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 have specific application to ORTUSA's repairs to OR17/1, could this cause potential delays to the repairs? Could OR claim being disadvantaged because the MC have failed to perform a mandatory requirement under the Protocol?

Or maybe they wait for OR repairs to issue it ?

It is pretty strange to have such an interpretation issued AFTER boats are constructed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Protocol Article 29.9. Measurement Committee Interpretation

(a) The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications.

 

Article 1.6, defines the words “shall” and “must” as mandatory.

 

To date, the Measurement Committee have not issued any interpretations of the specified Articles, and considering that Art. 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 have specific application to ORTUSA's repairs to OR17/1, could this cause potential delays to the repairs? Could OR claim being disadvantaged because the MC have failed to perform a mandatory requirement under the Protocol?

Or maybe they wait for OR repairs to issue it ?

It is pretty strange to have such an interpretation issued AFTER boats are constructed.

 

Is this what you are looking for? It went up about 5 days ago IIRC

 

http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Measurement-Methodology-3-Material-Usage-Schedule.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this what you are looking for? It went up about 5 days ago IIRC

 

http://noticeboard.a...ge-Schedule.pdf

 

No, that's for the AC72 rule 22, which is directed toward confirming the allowed type of material and construction process: "Competitors shall provide a material usage schedule and the material manufacturer’s certificate of compliance for FRP used in each component described in rule 22.1 to the Measurement Committee".

 

Above, they are asking about the protocol 29, which is directed at repairs and modifications: "The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's for the AC72 rule 22, which is directed toward confirming the allowed type of material and construction process: "Competitors shall provide a material usage schedule and the material manufacturer’s certificate of compliance for FRP used in each component described in rule 22.1 to the Measurement Committee".

 

Above, they are asking about the protocol 29, which is directed at repairs and modifications: "The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications."

 

Seems like the MC is behind on their work. The 22 control procedure really should have been detailed before building started and the 29 control procedure before anyone needed to repair anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's for the AC72 rule 22, which is directed toward confirming the allowed type of material and construction process: "Competitors shall provide a material usage schedule and the material manufacturer’s certificate of compliance for FRP used in each component described in rule 22.1 to the Measurement Committee".

 

Above, they are asking about the protocol 29, which is directed at repairs and modifications: "The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications."

 

Seems like the MC is behind on their work. The 22 control procedure really should have been detailed before building started and the 29 control procedure before anyone needed to repair anything.

 

 

Protocol Article 29.9. Measurement Committee Interpretation

(a) The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications.

 

Article 1.6, defines the words “shall” and “must” as mandatory.

 

To date, the Measurement Committee have not issued any interpretations of the specified Articles, and considering that Art. 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 have specific application to ORTUSA's repairs to OR17/1, could this cause potential delays to the repairs? Could OR claim being disadvantaged because the MC have failed to perform a mandatory requirement under the Protocol?

Or maybe they wait for OR repairs to issue it ?

It is pretty strange to have such an interpretation issued AFTER boats are constructed.

I'd like to think the MC is working closely with, and answering queries from, ORTUSA over their repairs, and just haven't got around to releasing the information publicly. 29.10 certainly demands that MC written approval is obtained before commencing any repairs: I doubt that the MC or Jury will accept that any failure to obtain approval was "inadvertent".

 

I hope the MC's failure to provide the interpretations doesn't become an issue for ORTUSA and/or AR, though perhaps not so much for AR. Time is their enemy, and if there is an opportunity to seek more of it, the MC might be providing it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a phone call and = 29.9 interpretation dated august 2nd.

 

It's not in the measurement interpretation folder, and not a numbered interpretation, for some reason.

 

Great effort to get that: thanks. Looks like everything in order for all repairs to proceed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Measurement Committee

Interpretation No. 24 of AC72 Class Rule Version 1.1 : 22 February, 2011

 

Rule References:

 

25. MEASUREMENT CONDITIONS

 

25.1 The AC72 Yacht shall be brought to measurement condition to determine the measurement

weight. The measurement condition includes everything aboard the AC72 Yacht during a race

except the following:

(a) (b. ACRM personnel, guests and ACRM equipment that is not permanently installed on the AC72

Yacht;

(c. crew;

(d) crew clothing and equipment that is normally carried on the person while racing but limited to

a maximum of 6.00 kg per crewmember;

(e) soft sails (including soft sail bags, luff cables and hanks) ; and

(f)

 

25.2

the wing as it was weighed in wing measurement condition;

food and drinks.

MWP shall be determined when the AC72 yacht is floating in measurement condition and:

(a) all movable equipment is approximately centered, transversely and 11.000 m forward of the

stern plane;

(b. rudders and daggerboards shall be in their lowest possible positions (per rule 5.8);

(c. rudder and daggerboard cases shall be flooded to MWP, and net total flooded volume of all

cases combined shall be no greater than 50.0 liters; and

(d) no other part of the AC72 Yacht shall be flooded.

 

Question:

 

1. In measurement condition, may the rudders be placed on the platform?

 

Page 2 of 2

 

Answer:

 

1. For the purposes of determining measurement weight, the rudders may be placed on the platform in

the measurement condition of the AC72 Yacht (Refer PI 16).

For the purposes of determining compliance with the definition of hull in class rule 1.4 (k), the rudders

may be placed on the platform in the measurement condition of the AC72 Yacht (Refer PI 23).

For the purposes of determining MWP, the rudders shall be placed as required by rule 25.2.

 

This interpretation is issued in accordance with Rule 3 of the AC72 Class Rule Version 1.1 : 22 February, 2011.

 

Nick Nicholson,

Chairman

for the Measurement Committee

5th November

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Measurement Committee

Interpretation No. 24 of AC72 Class Rule Version 1.1 : 22 February, 2011

 

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ammendments... http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/AC72-Class-Rule-Amendment-No.-10.pdf

 

e.g.

 

Replace with:

15.1(e) be constructed of a netting of rhombus-shaped cells, of a size such that a cylinder with a diameter

of 0.050 m shall not easily pass through any cell of the netting while tensioned; or, be constructed

of NET Systems Ultra Cross SilverTM netting of nominal mesh size 0.050 m or less meeting the

requirements of (f) and (g) below;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again: Artemis has filed an application against the Jury's decision which over-ruled PI22 and ruled in favour of ETNZ - and which also cost AR EURO10k in costs:

 

1. On 22nd October 2012, the Jury received an Application from Artemis Racing, representing Kungliga Svenska Segel Sällskapet (KSSS).

 

2. Artemis Racing (AR) in its Application requested a ruling that the Jury amended the AC72 Class Rule (CR) and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued its Decision in Case AC16 (JN051). The Jury Decision in JN051 determined that the Measurement Committee (MC) had exceeded its jurisdiction in Public Interpretation No 22 (PI 22)

 

This is a non-runner for AR: the Jury is empowered under the Protocol to substitute its decision for an MC interpretation which contradicts the Protocol and/or the AC72 Class Rule.

 

We should try to keep all Jury matters in this thread so we can find it quickly.

 

JN052.pdf

 

Any update on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again: Artemis has filed an application against the Jury's decision which over-ruled PI22 and ruled in favour of ETNZ - and which also cost AR EURO10k in costs:

 

1. On 22nd October 2012, the Jury received an Application from Artemis Racing, representing Kungliga Svenska Segel Sällskapet (KSSS).

 

2. Artemis Racing (AR) in its Application requested a ruling that the Jury amended the AC72 Class Rule (CR) and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued its Decision in Case AC16 (JN051). The Jury Decision in JN051 determined that the Measurement Committee (MC) had exceeded its jurisdiction in Public Interpretation No 22 (PI 22)

 

This is a non-runner for AR: the Jury is empowered under the Protocol to substitute its decision for an MC interpretation which contradicts the Protocol and/or the AC72 Class Rule.

 

We should try to keep all Jury matters in this thread so we can find it quickly.

 

JN052.pdf

 

Any update on this?

Not yet. The IJ gave AR til the 13th November to reply to any replies from the other parties (ETNZ, LR, OR, ACRM) so I imagine we should see something in the coming week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amusing,

 

Remove:

6.5 The intersection of any hull, cross structure or rigging shall be at least 1.000 m forward of the stern plane, and shall be no further forward than the forward watertight bulkheads required under rule 6.12.

Replace with:

6.5 The intersection of any hull with cross structure or rigging shall be at least 1.000 m forward of the stern plane, and shall be no further forward than the forward watertight bulkheads required under rule 6.12.

 

Dated, nov 6th 2012, a few days after k2mav measurements of AR. Any relation ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 days past the deadline for AR's reply to any responses from the other 2 challengers and still no update from the Jury. Wonder whether the issues are more contentious than we think? Also interesting to note that this is Case AC18 and the previous one is Cas16: is there a Case17 we don't know about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the purpose of the constant remeasuring? As long as they are compliant at the first LVC race does it really matter?

Or am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the purpose of the constant remeasuring? As long as they are compliant at the first LVC race does it really matter?

Or am I missing something?

I guess that it is prudent to know that your boat measures all the time .. if it is left till just before the LV series the measurers might find something that takes days or even longer to correct ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the purpose of the constant remeasuring?

 

They are going so fast they are subject to Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction.

 

681e603a7cf6487f6577b2304ad72ca3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^^

 

Reminds me of one of Steve Clark's boats (believe an I-14, am not too knowledgeable about monos), called Red Shift

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's for the AC72 rule 22, which is directed toward confirming the allowed type of material and construction process: "Competitors shall provide a material usage schedule and the material manufacturer’s certificate of compliance for FRP used in each component described in rule 22.1 to the Measurement Committee".

 

Above, they are asking about the protocol 29, which is directed at repairs and modifications: "The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications."

 

Seems like the MC is behind on their work. The 22 control procedure really should have been detailed before building started and the 29 control procedure before anyone needed to repair anything.

 

 

Protocol Article 29.9. Measurement Committee Interpretation

(a) The Measurement Committee shall issue an interpretation of Articles 29.5, 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 as well as information that Competitors must supply to the Measurement Committee about the components described in Article 29 and the procedures to document the components and to manage the modifications.

 

Article 1.6, defines the words “shall” and “must” as mandatory.

 

To date, the Measurement Committee have not issued any interpretations of the specified Articles, and considering that Art. 29.6, 29.7 and 29.8 have specific application to ORTUSA's repairs to OR17/1, could this cause potential delays to the repairs? Could OR claim being disadvantaged because the MC have failed to perform a mandatory requirement under the Protocol?

Or maybe they wait for OR repairs to issue it ?

It is pretty strange to have such an interpretation issued AFTER boats are constructed.

I'd like to think the MC is working closely with, and answering queries from, ORTUSA over their repairs, and just haven't got around to releasing the information publicly. 29.10 certainly demands that MC written approval is obtained before commencing any repairs: I doubt that the MC or Jury will accept that any failure to obtain approval was "inadvertent".

 

I hope the MC's failure to provide the interpretations doesn't become an issue for ORTUSA and/or AR, though perhaps not so much for AR. Time is their enemy, and if there is an opportunity to seek more of it, the MC might be providing it....

 

I wonder if this relates to the "favour" Comrade Huston wants from ..... what's their name again? ... the syndicate representing the RNZYS ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.. Also interesting to note that this is Case AC18 and the previous one is Cas16: is there a Case17 we don't know about?

GD suggested in iirc a Tasker interview he might file a case, over the bases issue. Could be that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.. Also interesting to note that this is Case AC18 and the previous one is Cas16: is there a Case17 we don't know about?

GD suggested in iirc a Tasker interview he might file a case, over the bases issue. Could be that?

 

He wants $$$ compensation for the base switcheroo!

 

Until that is settled it would be expecting a lot to see TNZ dish out "favours" to the defender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Nobody, PH included, is suggesting anybody 'dish out favors' to anyone else. The point is that some changes, like the spar flotation example I pointed to, might be of great value to everyone.

 

Increasing the number of spar sections may be a stretch of that same idea (being more expensive $ and time wise than flotation that would help ease the extra-spar necessity chances) but since it's 'just' a spar section then easing that restriction may also be a plausible and realistic benefit to all. The various XX,000 man hour numbers we have seen from differing sources surely included the entire wing - a far more complex endeavor than the spar alone.

 

The rule was there to help the potential €20m campaigns anyway; since none of them are in the game it may be less a competitive concern now than when envisioned.

 

GD is not about to hand out any imagined 'favors' but may consider that some changes would better guarantee even his own ability to survive all the way to a Cup victory. Remember ETNZ's sailing and their rescue performance, in Newport?

 

Oh that's right, you admitted you haven't seen even one AC45 regatta so how would you know how easily ETNZ wiped out even at that scale?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Nobody, PH included, is suggesting anybody 'dish out favors' to anyone else. The point is that some changes, like the spar flotation example I pointed to, might be of great value to everyone.

Increasing the number of spar sections may be a stretch of that same idea

^^^^

I guess the spin is around the spar flotation device...

 

A few quotes chosen from PH rants :

 

- "If i was Dalton, I would have raised my hand the next day and said "maybe we need to give the wing replacement rule a rethink". He could have bought himself a favor, and a lot of goodwill from the US audience."

 

- "There is going to come a time when the team which represents RNZYS is going to need a favor.....there was room to get Larry to make some sort of deal"

 

 

"The two teams that would benefit the most from a change in the wing rule, to allow more elements would RNZYS and Prada, especially Prada, because those two have essentially a Lego boat-wing. If they don't want to cut GGYC a break AND buy themselves something in the process, I don't care either. Frankly, I truly hope RNZYS busts up into little bits before Race One of the Louis Vuitton Cup."

 

 

 

I am not even sure OR was willing to bargain the wing or something else like, even more important for them TIME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ It's a very big stretch to think anyone takes a time extension fantasy seriously. You and Indio go on and on about it but the chances and hopes of it happening (even if the OR boatbuilders wish it were so) must be vanishingly remote for everyone else.

 

Your suggestion that the Capt K bs has any possible impact to the timeline is equally bizarre, given the already drawn out timeline of that case even before appeals, if even necessesary, get filed in his face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ It's a very big stretch to think anyone takes a time extension fantasy seriously. You and Indio go on and on about it but the chances and hopes of it happening (even if the OR boatbuilders wish it were so) must be vanishingly remote for everyone else.

Get your facts straight, dickhead! None of us is saying that OR would like to change the rules to buy themselves more time: we all know that OR's biggest problem IS time!! We've suggested that OR might want the Protocol amended over the repairs permitted and their potential impact on the status of the second boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ It's a very big stretch to think anyone takes a time extension fantasy seriously. You and Indio go on and on about it but the chances and hopes of it happening (even if the OR boatbuilders wish it were so) must be vanishingly remote for everyone else.

Get your facts straight, dickhead! None of us is saying that OR would like to change the rules to buy themselves more time: we all know that OR's biggest problem IS time!! We've suggested that OR might want the Protocol amended over the repairs permitted and their potential impact on the status of the second boat.

 

Actually Indio, some of our more fanatical countrymen have been making pretty outrageous claims including this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Indio, some of our more fanatical countrymen have been making pretty outrageous claims

I think no poster, wherever from, has ever made PH outrageous statement about the OR boat: "I truly hope RNZYS busts up into little bits".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Nobody, PH included, is suggesting anybody 'dish out favors' to anyone else. The point is that some changes, like the spar flotation example I pointed to, might be of great value to everyone.

 

 

Sorry mate ... Comrade Huston was clearly calling on Dalts to offer OR a "favour."

 

Not sure what it was. But I assumed Peter was referring to the "only build 3 wings" requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

GD is not about to hand out any imagined 'favors' but may consider that some changes would better guarantee even his own ability to survive all the way to a Cup victory.

 

Dalts understands the need to survive and does not need you and Huston to cry crocodile tears on his behalf.

 

If Dalts wants changes he can speak for himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Indio, some of our more fanatical countrymen have been making pretty outrageous claims

I think no poster, wherever from, has ever made PH outrageous statement about the OR boat: "I truly hope RNZYS busts up into little bits".

 

I agree! Peter is not having a good week. And this statement is outrageous.

 

Maybe he could delete (or explain) his statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

 

Is this for the Jury to decide too?

 

Only if another competitor makes an official complain to Anarchy Comments Rules Management....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bitter Peter is blissfully pissed off that OR17 is nowhere to be seen. As are most of the OR koolaid addicts..

Color me an OR fan who is disappointed at the setback, for sure, but in no way pissed off or angry. They just have a big, early challenge ahead, much like what AR has had to overcome.

 

ETNZ is looking excellent, I really hope LR can catch up in relatively short order. Looking forward to seeing them full-out foiling their L's in a great downwinder, starting alongside ETNZ riding their S's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bitter Peter is blissfully pissed off that OR17 is nowhere to be seen. As are most of the OR koolaid addicts..

Color me an OR fan who is disappointed at the setback, for sure, but in no way pissed off or angry. They just have a big, early challenge ahead, much like what AR has had to overcome.

 

ETNZ is looking excellent, I really hope LR can catch up in relatively short order. Looking forward to seeing them full-out foiling their L's in a great downwinder, starting alongside ETNZ riding their S's.

 

Nicely stated!

 

After a couple of hours watching the Spencer web cam this week it seems to me that when it comes to boat speed, in light air at least, LR is on the pace. Vote is out on crew work and the heavy weather stuff. Too bad that ETNZ only has a few allocated sailing days left.

 

Given that this thread is about measurement . . . does anyone have news about ETNZ measurement on Wednesday? Do they have the chain saws out? And what about LR? Were they tape tested too? To what end?

 

And finally, when is the Jury going to explain to Artemis, non too gently I hope, that they are pissing to windward with their appeal against the appeal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bitter Peter is blissfully pissed off that OR17 is nowhere to be seen. As are most of the OR koolaid addicts..

Color me an OR fan who is disappointed at the setback, for sure, but in no way pissed off or angry. They just have a big, early challenge ahead, much like what AR has had to overcome.

 

ETNZ is looking excellent, I really hope LR can catch up in relatively short order. Looking forward to seeing them full-out foiling their L's in a great downwinder, starting alongside ETNZ riding their S's.

 

Nicely stated!

 

After a couple of hours watching the Spencer web cam this week it seems to me that when it comes to boat speed, in light air at least, LR is on the pace. Vote is out on crew work and the heavy weather stuff. Too bad that ETNZ only has a few allocated sailing days left.

 

Given that this thread is about measurement . . . does anyone have news about ETNZ measurement on Wednesday? Do they have the chain saws out? And what about LR? Were they tape tested too? To what end?

 

And finally, when is the Jury going to explain to Artemis, non too gently I hope, that they are pissing to windward with their appeal against the appeal?

I think they were simply re-measured for a new Measurement Certificate under AC72 Class Rule 27.2 following the "speed implant" mods, with the original Measurement Certificate invalided by the mods.

 

27.2 Except for repair of, or replacement for, unintended damage, the measurement certificate ceases to be valid if there is any change to:

(a) any information recorded on the AC72 Yacht’s measurement certificate, except that when not racing the following changes are permitted:

(i) rudder or rudder stock movement as a result of the adjustment of a selfaligning bearing mechanism, provided that the total adjustment between bearings shall not exceed 0.010 m, and provided that after the movement the rudder complies with rule 8;

(ii) changes to wing weight and wing CG, provided those changes are still within the limits of rule 10.12; and

(iii) changes in measurement weight or the distribution of measurement weight, provided that MWP would not change more than 0.004 m at the stern plane or stem plane, and provided that after the change, the AC72 Yacht still complies with the limits of rule 26(a).

(iv) changes in other numerical values recorded on the measurement certificate that are solely the result of changes permitted in (i), (ii) and (iii) above, provided that all the resultant changes still fall within the limits of the AC72 Class Rule.

 

The AC18 case is dragging on a bit for what should be a straight forward denial of AR's challenge to the Jury's authority to make the dumping PI22.

 

However, I fully expect AR to protest the ETNZ-LR training together under Proto 32.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bitter Peter is blissfully pissed off that OR17 is nowhere to be seen. As are most of the OR koolaid addicts..

 

Peter has had a leaky head gasket this week and, later on, will likely regret saying he wants to see the tractor in shreds.

 

I have decided to overlook his outbursts because, on balance, he brings quite a bit to these threads.

 

For example, his analysis of the Canadian Fireplace challenge was quite intelligent and very revealing.

 

His "give us a favour" thing is odd. But was clearly posted on behalf of someone else. He was asked to insinuate the "favour" question into the discourse.

 

Unlike a couple of very disturbed characters that post here, I look forward to having a beer with Huston.

 

I think he is alright. Just frustrated with the OR situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bitter Peter is blissfully pissed off that OR17 is nowhere to be seen. As are most of the OR koolaid addicts..

Color me an OR fan who is disappointed at the setback, for sure, but in no way pissed off or angry. They just have a big, early challenge ahead, much like what AR has had to overcome.

 

ETNZ is looking excellent, I really hope LR can catch up in relatively short order. Looking forward to seeing them full-out foiling their L's in a great downwinder, starting alongside ETNZ riding their S's.

 

you have been remarkable in your moderate tone stinger

 

a very mature stance

 

sorry about your dad

 

my mum battling the big C too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bitter Peter is blissfully pissed off that OR17 is nowhere to be seen. As are most of the OR koolaid addicts..

 

Peter has had a leaky head gasket this week and, later on, will likely regret saying he wants to see the tractor in shreds.

 

I have decided to overlook his outbursts because, on balance, he brings quite a bit to these threads.

 

For example, his analysis of the Canadian Fireplace challenge was quite intelligent and very revealing.

 

His "give us a favour" thing is odd. But was clearly posted on behalf of someone else. He was asked to insinuate the "favour" question into the discourse.

 

Unlike a couple of very disturbed characters that post here, I look forward to having a beer with Huston.

 

I think he is alright. Just frustrated with the OR situation.

 

hastings and huston both think they speak for thier respective countries when in fact they don't...the mad prof and media management man are out on a limb when it comes to telling it like it is for the management and fans of tnz and or...

 

hastings with his sketchy Blackheart history and his hatred of the nz traitors and huston with his campaign for a sketchy canadian challenge and subsequent hatred of all things NZ....both out to lunch..

 

bitter and twisted...table for two...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell? Its now 10 days past the deadline that AR had to respond to the submissions of the other teams!

How can it take this long? My finger nails are getting kinda short :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I takes time because they have people all over the world and I suspect that for a decision this big they would want to bring everybody face to face. So, they get the AR comments, package them with those of the other teams and send it to each jury member. They read everything and only then do they get on a plane, at the first date that all the jury are free. I can easily see this taking 2-3 weeks, but hope it will be shorter.

 

The important thing is for the jury to be seen to be giving this the due care and attention it should have. If they decide against ETNZ, it would be a ruling that means the current boat cannot measure and, if the information is correct, it would need extensive modifications to get it to measure. On the other hand, to simply dismiss i=the case is also not on because the heart of the matter is that the jury exceeded their remit and power. They need to be seen to be giving that proper attention rather than just throwing it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I takes time because they have people all over the world and I suspect that for a decision this big they would want to bring everybody face to face. So, they get the AR comments, package them with those of the other teams and send it to each jury member. They read everything and only then do they get on a plane, at the first date that all the jury are free. I can easily see this taking 2-3 weeks, but hope it will be shorter.

 

The important thing is for the jury to be seen to be giving this the due care and attention it should have. If they decide against ETNZ, it would be a ruling that means the current boat cannot measure and, if the information is correct, it would need extensive modifications to get it to measure. On the other hand, to simply dismiss i=the case is also not on because the heart of the matter is that the jury exceeded their remit and power. They need to be seen to be giving that proper attention rather than just throwing it out.

 

Almost - but they are a little smarter than that. If you have anything for the jury, you refer to this list http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/Jury/jurycomms.pdf and it goes to them all directly. No waiting for it to be packaged afaik. So wait for the AR response to arrive, or for the time to be up, (whichever comes first), confer, then publish!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The JN051 Case AC16 Decision on PI22 was published within a week of the deadline for responses.Case18 in which AR claims that the Jury's decision in Case16 "amended the AC72 Class Rule" and therefore exceeded its jurisdiction might be a reach under 15.4(a):

 

15.4 The Jury shall act both as a jury under the RRSAC and as an arbitral body, with the following powers:(a) to resolve all matters of interpretation of the Rules other than the class rules in Article 13.1© except as provided in Article

 

15.4(f);(f) where the Jury finds the Measurement Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction or broken a Rule, it may substitute its determination for the Measurement Committee’s;

 

I thought the Jury were very careful and thorough in their PI22 decision that the Measurement Committee exceeded its authority. Erkelens must need those billables...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I have this all wrong, by the accusation is that the ruling made has the effect of changing the class rules and that the jury is not allowed to change those rules. When they issued their ruling, they thought they were issuing an interpretaion. Fine, they are allowed to do that. The AR case is that the "interpretaion" actually changes the class rules, which the jury is not allowed to do. So the jury need to consider whether their interpretation does, in fact, cahnge the rule. That is a very different case from what some want to believe it is. It is easily believable that they didn't consider whether their ruling had the effect of changing the rules. They now have to examine that idea in a serious way as this is not the same question as they have been asked before. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they get outside advace from others who write and enforce class rules, either firmally or informally.

 

If the jury determine that their interpretation does change the rules, then they have to withdraw that ruling and ETNZ would have a serious problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I have this all wrong, by the accusation is that the ruling made has the effect of changing the class rules and that the jury is not allowed to change those rules. When they issued their ruling, they thought they were issuing an interpretaion. Fine, they are allowed to do that. The AR case is that the "interpretaion" actually changes the class rules, which the jury is not allowed to do. So the jury need to consider whether their interpretation does, in fact, cahnge the rule. That is a very different case from what some want to believe it is. It is easily believable that they didn't consider whether their ruling had the effect of changing the rules. They now have to examine that idea in a serious way as this is not the same question as they have been asked before. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they get outside advace from others who write and enforce class rules, either firmally or informally.

 

If the jury determine that their interpretation does change the rules, then they have to withdraw that ruling and ETNZ would have a serious problem.

 

I think "ETNZ would have a serious problem" is a bit like saying the Greek's have a shortfall in pocket money.

ETNZ would be right royally screwed with piss all chance of successfully challenging for the cup.

Not only would they have to take the chainsaw to boat 1, but boat 2 would be seriously delayed and they would be unlikely to formulate a competitive design in the time left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jury's decision is, imo, the correct one in determining that "measurement condition" as defined in the Class Rule 1.4k did not include all the other components and equipment such as wing, soft sails, crew, etc: these components were only required for measuring MWP. Plain English comprehension interprets the words as written. The MC tried to introduce the "intention of the authors" of the Class Rule in their PI22, but the Jury threw that out, and substituted their (Jury's) interpretation of Class Rule as written for the MC's.

 

Now I'm not sure which part of the Jury's decision AR thinks amends the Class Rule: all they (Jury) did was interpret the words as written, consistent with previous rulings. The MC, otoh, did amend the Class Rule when they presumed the intention of the authors in reaching their PI22.

 

AR are not questioning the authority of the Jury to make the ruling they did on PI22. They're claiming the Jury "amended" the Class Rule by affirming that "measurement condition" excludes all the sailing and human inventory required to be aboard when measuring MWP. Quite simple, really...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Nicely put.

 

In that the Jury's interpretation is closer to the written language - it would seem a very long stretch for AR to succeed with their claim that the MC's take on things was the correct one and that in setting that interpretation aside the Jury 'amended the rule'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AR case is that the "interpretation" actually changes the class rules, which the jury is not allowed to do. So the jury need to consider whether their interpretation does, in fact, change the rule.

 

The dilemma posed is this: (1) the class rule as written are ambiguous on an important point (how big can the foils be), BUT (2) the only way to amend the rules is by "unanimous consent of Competitors still competing", which they will never get on this issue.

The dilemma can be solved in only two ways.

 

(a) The Jury can state that that their judgment of what the plain language of the rule means is NOT an amendment. The jury rulings are final and cannot be appealed so that would be the end of it.

or

( b ) If on reflection, the jury agrees that the rule is so ambiguous that it's judgment on the meaning of the language in effect represents an amendment (which it is not allowed to make) then 15.4 b comes into effect " The Jury shall act ... as an arbitral body, with the ... powers to resolve disputes between Competitors, ...that cannot be resolved by the terms of any Rule;"

 

So, even of they agree with AR, the jury still makes the final decision on what this rule language means. It would seem to me that TNZ wins no matter how the jury decides this issue (whether the prior ruling is an amendment or an interpretation).

 

 

I think "ETNZ would have a serious problem" is a bit like saying the Greek's have a shortfall in pocket money.

I don't see that. It would take away a clear point of advantage they now have, but I don't see it as requiring any sort of major redesign All they then do is go to the same smaller foils that everyone else will also have to be using. All it will mean is that they need more wind to be foiling. We see LR sailing on the TNZ platform with L foils like OR's just fine.

Out of curiosity - Does anyone have a fact on actually how much bigger TNZ's S foils are than the 10% benchmark? Are they 1% over or 100% over? As I mentioned elsewhere, the rules suggest you are best building bigger foils to start as you can make them smaller without any limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

OR's float and ETNZ's are 180kgs!!

 

If that's the case then TNZ's probably also float. They are (roughly) 7m long* x .75m wide x 5cm (average) thick = .26 m^3 = 269kg of displaced water. So if they are only 180kgs they will float.

 

Edit * actually probably effectively a m or so longer than this when you add in the horizontal wing. This adds more volume and thus makes them even more 'floating' (307kgs of displaced water)

 

Edit 2: note if they are 180kgs, that means the construction is about (very very roughly) 50% carbon and 50% honeycomb (by volume)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think "ETNZ would have a serious problem" is a bit like saying the Greek's have a shortfall in pocket money.

I don't see that. It would take away a clear point of advantage they now have, but I don't see it as requiring any sort of major redesign All they then do is go to the same smaller foils that everyone else will also have to be using. All it will mean is that they need more wind to be foiling. We see LR sailing on the TNZ platform with L foils like OR's just fine.

This certainly is a bit confusing. LR has thrown a spanner in the works. I thought that ETNZ had stated that under the measurers original interpretation, they couldn't get their boat to measure at all because they needed the big foils to make it all comply. Maybe I misunderstood that and all it would mean is that they couldn't use the big foils. Or maybe GD was doing his usual thing of stating the extreme position in ordedr to continue the "hard done by" stance he seems to always take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think "ETNZ would have a serious problem" is a bit like saying the Greek's have a shortfall in pocket money.

I don't see that. It would take away a clear point of advantage they now have, but I don't see it as requiring any sort of major redesign All they then do is go to the same smaller foils that everyone else will also have to be using. All it will mean is that they need more wind to be foiling. We see LR sailing on the TNZ platform with L foils like OR's just fine.

 

This certainly is a bit confusing. ...

 

Only to you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think "ETNZ would have a serious problem" is a bit like saying the Greek's have a shortfall in pocket money.

I don't see that. It would take away a clear point of advantage they now have, but I don't see it as requiring any sort of major redesign All they then do is go to the same smaller foils that everyone else will also have to be using. All it will mean is that they need more wind to be foiling. We see LR sailing on the TNZ platform with L foils like OR's just fine.

 

This certainly is a bit confusing. ...

 

Only to you...

So inform us of the situation. If the ruling goes against ETNZ, can the boat still be measure with the current foils. I think not. Will it measure with smaller foils - we were told ariginally that it couldn't, but LR seem to suggest that th platform can measure with "OR" style foils (do we know for sure that LR is sailing in a measured format)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that ETNZ had stated that under the measurers original interpretation, they couldn't get their boat to measure at all because they needed the big foils to make it all comply.

 

The measurement problem (under the original MC interpretation) was that the MC required the foils to be fully down, and in that position they displaced more than 10% of the total AC72's displaced volume, and thus broke class rule 1.4k (definition of hull).

 

But the boat (apparently) does measure when the foils are raised, as they then displace enough less volume to meet 1.4k.

 

That indicates that they would also be able to measure using smaller foils fully down. How much smaller they would have to be (than they are now) we don't know, but given that all the AC72's will weight pretty much the same, and thus displace pretty much the same amount of water, it would have to be pretty close to what OR/AR were/are using (I am assumming that OR/AR are/were using max size 'allowed' foil packages)

 

So inform us of the situation. If the ruling goes against ETNZ, can the boat still be measure with the current foils. I think not.

 

Agreed - no.

 

Will it measure with smaller foils

 

Certainly - yes, but how much smaller we don't know.

 

- we were told ariginally that it couldn't, but LR seem to suggest that th platform can measure with "OR" style foils (do we know for sure that LR is sailing in a measured format)

 

We don't know if LR's L foils measure or not. Someone should be able to do a photo comparison with OR to see if they look bigger or not. But essentially both boats should measure with foils the size OR has been using (if they lose in the jury, but as described above, I expect they will 'win').

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon I think it's time for...

 

Love the way you demand definitive answers from others - yet have a '$ each way' on almost every issue yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon I think it's time for...

 

Love the way you demand definitive answers from others - yet have a '$ each way' on almost every issue yourself.

I only demanded a definitive answer because Indio said i was the only one confused. If he isn't, he should be able to give a difinitive answer. Otherwise, his comment was typical of him, posting for effect with no substance. If he can give a difinitive answer, then maybe his dig at me was justified. (although Estar has now beaten him to it).

 

And i only go for an each way bet when we haven't got any idea what the real answer is. I cannot bring myslef to get caught up in all the patriotic wishful thinking that seems to give some people on here insights that nobody can really have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we look at LR foils, they look finer with a bigger V tip. We don't know if the measure or not, but I think that is one way to go if AR wins. Actually, it could make faster foils if they work properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Indio, some of our more fanatical countrymen have been making pretty outrageous claims

I think no poster, wherever from, has ever made PH outrageous statement about the OR boat: "I truly hope RNZYS busts up into little bits".

 

I agree! Peter is not having a good week. And this statement is outrageous.

 

Maybe he could delete (or explain) his statement?

 

You know what Hastings, I'm having a great week. It's Thanksgiving over here, and I'm thankful for a great deal, great kids, sailing ect.

 

In the small scheme of things I'm thankful for Porsche USA sending me a letter out of the blue and and saying I was being offered a Panamera to drive for a while, just because. Maybe i was given this opportunity because they know I won't be parking it in a tent or a cave in China, nor scouring for used parts for a 1938 Ford engine.

 

And just because I am expressing myself in a manner you don't agree with, why does that make it a bad week for me? Seems the Ed saw our exchange and thought enough of what I said to put my comments on the home page. Consider he doesn't care at all about the Cup, or all that much about Oracle Racing.

 

And for sure Dalton doesn't need me to tell him anything. Go ahead, all you kiwi's, keep knocking the crap out of Oracle Racing, out of the way GGYC has elected to run this Cup. See what that does for the long term commercial prospects, or even the short term, which the team from RNZYS needs desperately in order to validate the decision by all the NZL government and all the sponsors to toss money at a sailing team in an event that isn't getting all that much attention.

 

As for my comment about the boat from RNZYS busting up....yeah, some more drama will bring more attention to the event, and tons of sympathy. If Dalton was smart he'd be appealing to the US audience, because it is massively bigger than the NZL audience, and there is a void to be filled because ACEA has done such a poor job reaching into the US yacht racing crowd, at least in a meaningful and enduring way.

 

And clearly you don't understand the nuances of the word favor, or favour, which ever spelling you prefer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... I cannot bring myslef to get caught up in all the patriotic wishful thinking....

 

That's because you're a whinging pom living in Australia who has no heart in either country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites