• 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.

~Stingray~

Jury Decision

Recommended Posts

If they'd done anything else it would have been very disappointing - and only 23 pages to hash through it. Now can we go racing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad-but now lets see some racing......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting reading through the decision:

 

40. ETNZ submitted that they raced on 7th July 2013 in compliance with the Class Rule and all Safety Recommendations. All the suggested Class Rule changes, except proposed new class rule 8.8(B) (increased rudder depth), are permissive, not prohibitive. They submitted that three teams can comply with the current Class Rule and the Safety Recommendations, but AR cannot. ETNZ asked the Jury to make an order that AR receives dispensation for not complying with the Class Rule.

 

But the IJ ruled that they did not have authority to give AR dispensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

84. The Captains explained the role with respect to the maritime environment.

That role includes regulating commercial traffic and recreational users of the Bay. It

does not include imposing design regulations on the event participants. They also

explained the process by which an Event Sponsor obtains a Marine Event Permit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, can I infer that AR can use their original rule-compliant rudders? If so, then I'm good with it. Only thing I did not want to see happen was for the requirements for length and area, which would make AR's originals unusable, and they would end up with the boot. Now, hopefully they can use their originals, immediately, and modify their new rudders to make them asymmetrical in time for the LV Semis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, all 'safety' amendments to the class rule are declared null and void - so they revert to their state before the recommendations were issued. Now during the media day, PC mentioned they had 'pre-safety rules' compliant rudders, and a set of post safety rules rudders.

 

Surely they can now use the first set and measure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting reading through the decision:

 

40. ETNZ submitted that they raced on 7th July 2013 in compliance with the Class Rule and all Safety Recommendations. All the suggested Class Rule changes, except proposed new class rule 8.8( B) (increased rudder depth), are permissive, not prohibitive. They submitted that three teams can comply with the current Class Rule and the Safety Recommendations, but AR cannot. ETNZ asked the Jury to make an order that AR receives dispensation for not complying with the Class Rule.

 

But the IJ ruled that they did not have authority to give AR dispensation.

 

Can anyone translate that into numbbrain English. What did the dispensation involve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Interesting reading through the decision:

 

40. ETNZ submitted that they raced on 7th July 2013 in compliance with the Class Rule and all Safety Recommendations. All the suggested Class Rule changes, except proposed new class rule 8.8( B) (increased rudder depth), are permissive, not prohibitive. They submitted that three teams can comply with the current Class Rule and the Safety Recommendations, but AR cannot. ETNZ asked the Jury to make an order that AR receives dispensation for not complying with the Class Rule.

 

But the IJ ruled that they did not have authority to give AR dispensation.

Can anyone translate that into numbbrain English. What did the dispensation involve?

ETNZ would concede trainer wheels for AR to keep them in the event and safe from PC et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

84. The Captains explained the role with respect to the maritime environment.

That role includes regulating commercial traffic and recreational users of the Bay. It

does not include imposing design regulations on the event participants. They also

explained the process by which an Event Sponsor obtains a Marine Event Permit.

And this from a witness called by ACRM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did the dispensation involve?

 

I think ETNZ meant they'd like to go with the recommendations they'd agreed and AR would have dispensation not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Interesting reading through the decision:

 

40. ETNZ submitted that they raced on 7th July 2013 in compliance with the Class Rule and all Safety Recommendations. All the suggested Class Rule changes, except proposed new class rule 8.8( B) (increased rudder depth), are permissive, not prohibitive. They submitted that three teams can comply with the current Class Rule and the Safety Recommendations, but AR cannot. ETNZ asked the Jury to make an order that AR receives dispensation for not complying with the Class Rule.

 

But the IJ ruled that they did not have authority to give AR dispensation.

Can anyone translate that into numbbrain English. What did the dispensation involve?

ETNZ would concede trainer wheels for AR to keep them in the event and safe from PC et al.

 

Ah, I had never hear they had requested that. Good for them. Not sure if they thought it had any chance of being approved, but still, good on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, all 'safety' amendments to the class rule are declared null and void - so they revert to their state before the recommendations were issued. Now during the media day, PC mentioned they had 'pre-safety rules' compliant rudders, and a set of post safety rules rudders.

 

Surely they can now use the first set and measure?

 

No, just the recommendation regarding the rudder wings/length etc. The others are agreed to by all parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As I understand it, all 'safety' amendments to the class rule are declared null and void - so they revert to their state before the recommendations were issued. Now during the media day, PC mentioned they had 'pre-safety rules' compliant rudders, and a set of post safety rules rudders.

 

Surely they can now use the first set and measure?

 

No, just the recommendation regarding the rudder wings/length etc. The others are agreed to by all parties.

 

And the extra 100KG is also out. That may now be the biggest hurdle for AR, as they can comply with the rudders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A doozy. Thanks for the post Stingray.

Will read and inwardly digest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

84. The Captains explained the role with respect to the maritime environment.

That role includes regulating commercial traffic and recreational users of the Bay. It

does not include imposing design regulations on the event participants. They also

explained the process by which an Event Sponsor obtains a Marine Event Permit.

And this from a witness called by ACRM!

There's little doubt in my mind that ACRM knew this better than anyone including our fair readers. JC has been working with the USCG in SF - navigating the waters for racing near and over the shipping lanes with the CG and VSC -for years. The purpose of this witness (my take) is to get all of the facts around this out in the open, and in particular to the jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

* Regatta Notice 188, which did not deal with the Class Rule, is upheld.

* Regatta Notice 189, which has the effect of changing the Class Rule, is ordered by the Jury to be withdrawn.

* The Class Rule as it stood prior to RN 189 is now back in effect.

* The Jury does not see the Marine Permit as a binding law that overrides the consent-of-all-teams requirement for Class Rule changes.

* The "Event Sponsor" must now tell the USCG that there will be a difference in the event.

* The Jury believes that all teams are entitled to chime in to the USCG about the change -- not just GGYC.

* (My commentary: It will be interesting to see what the USCG does if they get mixed feedback, but the Jury decision summarizes USCG testimony in a way that seems like they have said in many ways that they don't really get into the business of vessel design issues.)

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

* The Jury didn't give AR a pass on the new rules, as they did not see clear authority to do so.

* The Jury did offer mediation services (my speculation: perhaps to deal with AR issue).

* The Jury "specifically reminds" all competitors to comply with the rule prohibiting acts that tarnish the reputation of the Cup and noted that (unnamed) competitors had made "inflammatory" comments. But no finding was made as to whether these comments crossed the line and were sanctionable.

* The Jury was invited to use its own authority to change the Class Rule, in the absence of the RD having the authority. The Jury seems to believe that it is not sufficiently clear that the Jury could have done this, so they declined to do so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This from the GGYC's submission:

 

"If the Safety Recommendations were cherry picked, GGYC would face huge liability issues and the Regatta is likely not to continue."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news from the IJ

 

I just hope IM can take it in his stride and not pull the pin on the whole game

Also, I hope PC and AR don't quit. I felt sorry for guys like NO who are desperate to be out there racing and pulling all stops to get the boat going. They'll be hugely disappointed if all their efforts are for nothing.

 

I hope all competitors can follow ETNZ’s lead and collectively grant AR a dispensation to race with non-protocol legal rudders. Something that was outside the IJ's power to allow, but surely ok via unanimous agreement.

 

It would be a sporting gesture amid the acrimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we are back to where we should have been 3+ weeks ago...get the teams in a room and decide what changes they can ALL agree to, then change them. yeah! Now we see how IM handles the slap on the wrists (on in the face). Does he now say the regatta isn't safe like he threatened to do and force the CG to rescind the permit, or does he concede that these weren't required for a safe regatta? Would that get him fired?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

JN075 Case AC24/25 Decision 11 July 2013

now we will soon see how the or will perform with old style winglets in the bearaway?? should be veeery interesting to watch??

There are no legal "old style winglets" - there's a tiny, afaik untested asymmetrical elevator stabilizer without a convenient trim tab (I suppose AoA adjustment range via rudder rake is more limited). Am waiting for alert poster eric e's graphic manipulation to know if it's even 0.22 m2 , as claimed by TS. The only thing going for it is it's orange! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This from the GGYC's submission:

 

"If the Safety Recommendations were cherry picked, GGYC would face huge liability issues and the Regatta is likely not to continue."

isn't that what im said he would do as well? can the regatta if he didn't get his way? will RN190 will cancel the show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news from the IJ

 

I just hope IM can take it in his stride and not pull the pin on the whole game

Also, I hope PC and AR don't quit. I felt sorry for guys like NO who are desperate to be out there racing and pulling all stops to get the boat going. They'll be hugely disappointed if all their efforts are for nothing.

 

I hope all competitors can follow ETNZ’s lead and collectively grant AR a dispensation to race with non-protocol legal rudders. Something that was outside the IJ's power to allow, but surely ok via unanimous agreement.

 

It would be a sporting gesture amid the acrimony.

 

THAT would be a GREAT move! It seems like it should be a relatively obvious solution at this point. The teams could all go unanimous consent on the 35 rules, then give AR life. It would absolutely allow for the event to go on in the best possible form, retain the rules, and maximize safety.

 

The only thing I had been opposed to was changing the rules with moving goal-posts, which would have precluded AR from racing while actually complying with two separate sets of rules. But if the teams could account for that, and mutually consent to such a solution, then everyone wins but OR, and I'm fine with that, even though I'm an OR supporter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

JN075 Case AC24/25 Decision 11 July 2013

now we will soon see how the or will perform with old style winglets in the bearaway?? should be veeery interesting to watch??

There are no legal "old style winglets" - there's a tiny, afaik untested asymmetrical elevator stabilizer without a convenient trim tab (I suppose AoA adjustment range via rudder rake is more limited). Am waiting for alert poster eric e's graphic manipulation to know if it's even 0.22 m2 , as claimed by TS. The only thing going for it is it's orange! :D

stabilizers, whatever you say, it'll still be veeery interesting don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

now we will soon see how the or will perform with old style winglets in the bearaway?? should be veeery interesting to watch??

 

 

If RC is correct, it will not phase them as they have foiled using class legal rudders without a performance drop

If PC is correct, then OR will only lose 0.00x kts of boat speed by changing to protocol legal rudders.

If SA posters are correct OR will immediately return to B1 - floppy submarine status

 

Sounds like a new "place your bets on the effects" thread...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is called a shot gun approach

 

173. "

ACRM, ACEA, GGYC and OTUSA submitted that if they were not able to succeed with their arguments with regard to Protocol Article 16, 13.2, and 58.1 to effect the Class Rule
changes provided for in Regatta Notice 189, then the Jury has power to make the Class Rule change under Article 15.4 (B). The Jury was implored to do this in order to enable the Event to proceed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

84. The Captains explained the role with respect to the maritime environment.

That role includes regulating commercial traffic and recreational users of the Bay. It

does not include imposing design regulations on the event participants. They also

explained the process by which an Event Sponsor obtains a Marine Event Permit.

And this from a witness called by ACRM!

There's little doubt in my mind that ACRM knew this better than anyone including our fair readers. JC has been working with the USCG in SF - navigating the waters for racing near and over the shipping lanes with the CG and VSC -for years. The purpose of this witness (my take) is to get all of the facts around this out in the open, and in particular to the jury.

He's been an excellent PRO for years. Not sure how close he's been to the permit process-especially during special circumstances/incidents and the aftermath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

now we will soon see how the or will perform with old style winglets in the bearaway?? should be veeery interesting to watch??

 

 

If RC is correct, it will not phase them as they have foiled using class legal rudders without a performance drop

If PC is correct, then OR will only lose 0.00x kts of boat speed by changing to protocol legal rudders.

If SA posters are correct OR will immediately return to B1 - floppy submarine status

 

Sounds like a new "place your bets on the effects" thread...

According to the guys in the Oracle thread they have never sailed with legal elevators. Why would they start now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grant Dalton says it is OK with him if AR sails however they need to. But not OR!

 

http://www.vsail.info/2013/07/11/statement-from-grant-dalton-regarding-decision-of-americas-cup-international-jury/

 

 

Good statement from GD. Again, my biggest issue was always forcing AR out by making them comply with some rules but not letting them have other opportunity that was allowed them through the recommendations. But this solution, by GD, assuming they can secure unanimous consent, would solve that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think this is called a shot gun approach

 

173. "

ACRM, ACEA, GGYC and OTUSA submitted that if they were not able to succeed with their arguments with regard to Protocol Article 16, 13.2, and 58.1 to effect the Class Rule
changes provided for in Regatta Notice 189, then the Jury has power to make the Class Rule change under Article 15.4 ( B). The Jury was implored to do this in order to enable the Event to proceed."

paging stingray. clean up required in aisle 42,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

^This, +++10000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This from the GGYC's submission:

 

"If the Safety Recommendations were cherry picked, GGYC would face huge liability issues and the Regatta is likely not to continue."

 

Yes, it's interesting that, in some ways, the Jury has called the bluff of the Event Sponsors. They now face the task of swallowing their past claims and informing the USCG that the event will go forward on the old rules. Of course, it sounds like their communication to the Coast Guard will also include "oh, by the way, AR thinks the event is now unsafe and we kinda agree, but ENTZ and LR are fine with it." Will have to be one of the strangest MEP amendments Sector SF has yet received!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what if and a big if....

 

AR comes out with a crazy fast boat and their "allowable" rudders end up beating ETNZ and LR, goes onto the Cup finals and wins. All because they were the only boat to be able to use the "new" rudders.

 

though I think allowing AR to use the rudders is very sportsman like but if they do end up winning, it'll be another can of worms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what if and a big if....

 

AR comes out with a crazy fast boat and their "allowable" rudders end up beating ETNZ and LR, goes onto the Cup finals and wins. All because they were the only boat to be able to use the "new" rudders.

 

though I think allowing AR to use the rudders is very sportsman like but if they do end up winning, it'll be another can of worms.

 

The solution to that would be having a sunset clause that requires them to be fully compliant by either the LV finals, or the AC, itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what if and a big if....

 

AR comes out with a crazy fast boat and their "allowable" rudders end up beating ETNZ and LR, goes onto the Cup finals and wins. All because they were the only boat to be able to use the "new" rudders.

 

though I think allowing AR to use the rudders is very sportsman like but if they do end up winning, it'll be another can of worms.

the answer is simple they can compete but not score if they use the big stabilizers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

84. The Captains explained the role with respect to the maritime environment.

That role includes regulating commercial traffic and recreational users of the Bay. It

does not include imposing design regulations on the event participants. They also

explained the process by which an Event Sponsor obtains a Marine Event Permit.

And this from a witness called by ACRM!

There's little doubt in my mind that ACRM knew this better than anyone including our fair readers. JC has been working with the USCG in SF - navigating the waters for racing near and over the shipping lanes with the CG and VSC -for years. The purpose of this witness (my take) is to get all of the facts around this out in the open, and in particular to the jury.

He's been an excellent PRO for years. Not sure how close he's been to the permit process-especially during special circumstances/incidents and the aftermath.

I don't know why ACRM and ACEA based a large part of the argument on needing to change the Class Rules in order to satisfy the MEP, and then called a witness from the CG who said, we don't impose design regulations on event participants.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like the ETNZ legal team did a good job of anticipating and debunking arguments put forward by ACRM, ACEA, GGYC and OTSUA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not at all surprised that the USCG have said they don't dictate design rules - there have been many posts on SA saying virtually the same thing (hey SWS, looks like my "vibe" was correct after-all :P ).

 

Anyway, a good result from the IJ and let's get on with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

84. The Captains explained the role with respect to the maritime environment.

That role includes regulating commercial traffic and recreational users of the Bay. It

does not include imposing design regulations on the event participants. They also

explained the process by which an Event Sponsor obtains a Marine Event Permit.

And this from a witness called by ACRM!

There's little doubt in my mind that ACRM knew this better than anyone including our fair readers. JC has been working with the USCG in SF - navigating the waters for racing near and over the shipping lanes with the CG and VSC -for years. The purpose of this witness (my take) is to get all of the facts around this out in the open, and in particular to the jury.

He's been an excellent PRO for years. Not sure how close he's been to the permit process-especially during special circumstances/incidents and the aftermath.

more than a PRO for StFYC...check your history. But that's not really relevant in this overall discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grant Dalton says it is OK with him if AR sails however they need to. But not OR!

 

http://www.vsail.info/2013/07/11/statement-from-grant-dalton-regarding-decision-of-americas-cup-international-jury/

 

Of course, what's wrong with this? It's not like he's saying that AR can race and score points... I think the principle is a sporting one. As said above - 'let them compete but they must comply to win'.

 

I'm sure they'd apply the same principle to the actual AC - "sure OTUSA can defend with any design they want, however if it doesn't comply with the Class Rules they can't score any points". ;)

 

 

 

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

Well he did make a very significant professional error in judgement that obviously exceeded his authority and cost many competitors a lot of money, some of it totally wasted.

 

I'm not suggesting is name is "mud" but equally, those that criticised his actions (not his person) were entirely justified.

 

I'm sure he had good intentions but he exercised them incorrectly and when you're in a position of significant influence and do this it's called professional negligence.

 

He made a very, very serious mistake and should be held to account for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was IM thinking? It's all about liability and giving the ~appearance~ of caring about safety, is my guess.

 

So he needed to develop a process, any process, even a stupid process, to show the judge when it goes to court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been too busy to read everything and try to figure this one out yet:

 

Are we sure that rudder-elevators revert to having no minimum size, as in the original Design Rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This from the GGYC's submission:

 

"If the Safety Recommendations were cherry picked, GGYC would face huge liability issues and the Regatta is likely not to continue."

(cue in Lou Reed)

And the Alinghi Friends go

"BO FD BO FD BO FD FD BO ..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

^This, +++10000

 

 

No.

 

IM just got spanked - completely.

There is some reconciliation talk from the teams (eg GD) but IM has been found acting beyond his jurisdiction

Peter Lester has just said on TV NZ that he thinks IM should resign, but does not think he will.

There is also the question of who would replace him.

 

Despite the reconciliation talk, IM has lost the confidence of LR and TNZ. The honorable thing to do (after putting this regatta into turmoil) would be to step down.

 

However, that is the decision of IM only. Meanwhile we all move on and watch LR on the race course.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been too busy to read everything and try to figure this one out yet:

 

Are we sure that rudder-elevators revert to having no minimum size, as in the original Design Rule?

 

cleaned up in aisle 42 yet? :lol:

do you think IM/GGYC will now stop the regatta as they threatened? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

I would be first to apologise and agree with the IJ's summation of IM being "experienced and impartial".

 

For me (and most except for the "witch hunt in Salem" crowd) the dispute was not about his integrity but his proces

Despite being a great & honourable guy, we wouldn't have had this whole IJ palaver if he hadn't overstepped his mandate and tried to ram through Class Rule changes without consent.

 

Again, his intent was honourable, a guy (and a friend) died "on his watch"as RD, no one could blame him for wanting to go super safe,

but via the efforts to alter the class rule, he neglected his other responsibility to ensure a fair competition IMO.

 

Regardless, I am happy that the IJ have cemented his integrity into the Public Record as it shouldn't be in question.

 

Now, let's go racing Iain!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

^This, +++10000

 

 

No.

 

IM just got spanked - completely.

There is some reconciliation talk from the teams (eg GD) but IM has been found acting beyond his jurisdiction

Peter Lester has just said on TV NZ that he thinks IM should resign, but does not think he will.

There is also the question of who would replace him.

 

Despite the reconciliation talk, IM has lost the confidence of LR and TNZ. The honorable thing to do (after putting this regatta into turmoil) would be to step down.

 

However, that is the decision of IM only. Meanwhile we all move on and watch LR on the race course.

 

 

No. The point was that a lot of people around here were claiming IM was in the bag with OR. That concept was refuted by the IJ, as well as GD, MS, et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Grant Dalton says it is OK with him if AR sails however they need to. But not OR!

 

http://www.vsail.info/2013/07/11/statement-from-grant-dalton-regarding-decision-of-americas-cup-international-jury/

 

Of course, what's wrong with this? It's not like he's saying that AR can race and score points... I think the principle is a sporting one. As said above - 'let them compete but they must comply to win'.

 

I'm sure they'd apply the same principle to the actual AC - "sure OTUSA can defend with any design they want, however if it doesn't comply with the Class Rules they can't score any points". ;)

 

 

>

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

Well he did make a very significant professional error in judgement that obviously exceeded his authority and cost many competitors a lot of money, some of it totally wasted.

 

I'm not suggesting is name is "mud" but equally, those that criticised his actions (not his person) were entirely justified.

 

I'm sure he had good intentions but he exercised them incorrectly and when you're in a position of significant influence and do this it's called professional negligence.

 

He made a very, very serious mistake and should be held to account for that.

 

 

Significant error in judgement is one thing, but most accused IM of being on the take and making his rudder recommendations for the sole purpose of favoring OR. Straight up character assasination. It was uncalled for and simply wrong.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

Sure, whatever. Am reminded of the French "it's worse than a crime, it's a mistake". Fall on his sword?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please! A decision to restore ones faith in professional sport. A few threads have gone quiet in the absence of one two who have been wearing their stars and stripes underpants a little too tightly recently. Sanitary prevails. Looking forward to watching these beasts square up to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

Sure, whatever. Am reminded of the French "it's worse than a crime, it's a mistake". Fall on his sword?

 

Didn't figure you to be cool with the mob that attacked IM's character. Learned something else new today.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what authority or expertise does the IJ have in judging IM's character. What evidence one way or the other did they consider in making a judgement on IM's impartiality. I didn't see any evidence or arguments put forth by the teams nor was the IJ asked to pass judgement on this issue. I read that section as a total throw away line by the IJ to try their best to be nice to a friend they were slapping the wrist of and try to give him an opportunity to continue. I personally don't think IM, was on the take or anything to that effect. I think he was just trying to do his best and got carried away with his own power, but honestly, why did the IJ feel the need to state this and what evidence did they base that on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please! A decision to restore ones faith in professional sport. A few threads have gone quiet in the absence of one two who have been wearing their stars and stripes underpants a little too tightly recently. Sanitary prevails. Looking forward to watching these beasts square up to each other.

 

Check yourself, there, tiger. From what I recall, the "stars & stripes" contingent have defended IM's integrity, stated that OR has not been cheating, and called for a decision that did not end up precluding at team from racing simply by following the rules they knew and those that had been proposed. I do not remember anyone saying that the rules should not revert back to the original protocol, but some of us did warn that doing so may end up causing problems with securing full approval for the regatta. We have still yet to see how that will work out. The other thing many of us were in agreement was that the rules should not include some, but not others, and in so doing, preclude AR from racing, just for having follows the rules they knew and the proposed rules. From what I can see, that has not happened, as it appears, with the way things now stand, AR can race with their original rudders.

 

So before you act like an ass, think a little about what has actually been said an how the ruling was actually presented.

 

The question, now, is how will things go with the teams trying to agree with each other to really enhance safety.

 

By the way, OR has not been cheating, they only provided their opinion of what would be safest, and have always proclaimed they can and will comply with whatever the rules are by the time they actually race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This from the GGYC's submission:

 

"If the Safety Recommendations were cherry picked, GGYC would face huge liability issues and the Regatta is likely not to continue."

isn't that what im said he would do as well? can the regatta if he didn't get his way? will RN190 will cancel the show?

 

The best way to resolve this was always if the teams could all agree even the few measures that had DR effects.

 

For the event anyway, the worst was always the situation we now face. If IM is true to his word the he will tell the CG that in his opinion the event will not be as safe without the safety rudder regs included, as it would have been with them included.

 

He will obviously have to pull RN189 and then immediately instruct the CG, per the IJ decision and orders. But if the CG then pulls the MEP, well I don't see how any events can continue no matter what boats are supposed to be in what race.

 

'Cancellation' of the AC itself seems very unlikely as the ultimate effect of today's decision but postponements sure do seem a possibility.

 

I hope it can be figured out; but doubt that it is possible to do so quickly with all the regulatory process that is involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ibsalin - I think the IJ made those statements because of the unsubstantiated character assassinations;

 

Significant error in judgement is one thing, but most accused IM of being on the take and making his rudder recommendations for the sole purpose of favoring OR. Straight up character assasination. It was uncalled for and simply wrong.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

Accepted without objection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This from the GGYC's submission:

 

"If the Safety Recommendations were cherry picked, GGYC would face huge liability issues and the Regatta is likely not to continue."

isn't that what im said he would do as well? can the regatta if he didn't get his way? will RN190 will cancel the show?

 

The best way to resolve this was always if the teams could all agree even the few measures that had DR effects.

 

For the event anyway, the worst was always the situation we now face. If IM is true to his word the he will tell the CG that in his opinion the event will not be as safe without the safety rudder regs included, as it would have been with them included.

 

He will obviously have to pull RN189 and then immediately instruct the CG, per the IJ decision and orders. But if the CG then pulls the MEP, well I don't see how any events can continue no matter what boats are supposed to be in what race.

 

'Cancellation' of the AC itself seems very unlikely as the ultimate effect of today's decision but postponements sure do seem a possibility.

 

I hope it can be figured out; but doubt that it is possible to do so quickly with all the regulatory process that is involved.

 

Actually, I think the worst would have been if the IJ had done the split, having the new rudder length / elevator area requirements without the permissive max beam stipulation. That would have scratched AR. I believe the current decision, with the new pressure of getting something agreed-upon so things can progress, provides the avenue for new mutual consent that will allow all of the teams to move forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes please! A decision to restore ones faith in professional sport. A few threads have gone quiet in the absence of one two who have been wearing their stars and stripes underpants a little too tightly recently. Sanitary prevails. Looking forward to watching these beasts square up to each other.

 

Check yourself, there, tiger. From what I recall, the "stars & stripes" contingent have defended IM's integrity, stated that OR has not been cheating, and called for a decision that did not end up precluding at team from racing simply by following the rules they knew and those that had been proposed. I do not remember anyone saying that the rules should not revert back to the original protocol, but some of us did warn that doing so may end up causing problems with securing full approval for the regatta. We have still yet to see how that will work out. The other thing many of us were in agreement was that the rules should not include some, but not others, and in so doing, preclude AR from racing, just for having follows the rules they knew and the proposed rules. From what I can see, that has not happened, as it appears, with the way things now stand, AR can race with their original rudders.

 

Edit: You're both wrong I'm afraid. (actually, I'm not sure that Daniel is saying anything different than I am... -_-)

 

The "'stars & stripes' contingent" (nice) were neither entirely impartial nor were they entirely bias.

 

There were two or three that were apparently just too stupid to understand and continued to express irrational views but once you've eliminated those statistical outliers then for the most part I saw typical partisan support which you can't hold against anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OR statement:

 

"We respect the decision of the America’s Cup Jury," said Grant Simmer, ORACLE TEAM USA General Manager. “We continue to support the Regatta Director and we believe all teams have benefited from his review. We don’t have an issue complying with the Class Rule, and we will be ready to race under the rules affirmed by the Jury.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^ Brilliant move from the AC management. Stingray do you confirm the idea of the CG came from TE ?

 

They will now have to go back to the USCG and propose a lower offer accepted by all the competitors at the risk of cancelling the event.... Well, brilliant move...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes please! A decision to restore ones faith in professional sport. A few threads have gone quiet in the absence of one two who have been wearing their stars and stripes underpants a little too tightly recently. Sanitary prevails. Looking forward to watching these beasts square up to each other.

 

Check yourself, there, tiger. From what I recall, the "stars & stripes" contingent have defended IM's integrity, stated that OR has not been cheating, and called for a decision that did not end up precluding at team from racing simply by following the rules they knew and those that had been proposed. I do not remember anyone saying that the rules should not revert back to the original protocol, but some of us did warn that doing so may end up causing problems with securing full approval for the regatta. We have still yet to see how that will work out. The other thing many of us were in agreement was that the rules should not include some, but not others, and in so doing, preclude AR from racing, just for having follows the rules they knew and the proposed rules. From what I can see, that has not happened, as it appears, with the way things now stand, AR can race with their original rudders.

 

So before you act like an ass, think a little about what has actually been said an how the ruling was actually presented.

 

The question, now, is how will things go with the teams trying to agree with each other to really enhance safety.

 

By the way, OR has not been cheating, they only provided their opinion of what would be safest, and have always proclaimed they can and will comply with whatever the rules are by the time they actually race.

No pontificating necessary and for my part it was not an attack on IM's character, he meant well, but got it wrong, two had shown that those changes were not fundamental to safety and were justified (now vindicated) in questioning the validity of those decisions and allowing a dangerous precedent to be set. That's all it was about.

I meant only a very limited few headinSFfogtightunderpantedindividuals, apologies for being too general

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

I'd like to see his reaction B4 I decide exactly what I think of IM - if its a big hissy fit and attempts to cancel the regatta then not so good. Applogise for the chaos and just get on with it (or resign) then maybe just unwise. I think with AR if you change the class rule for them they need to be able to run with it for the comp. It's a risk for ETNZ and LR but so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

 

^This, +++10000

IM's judgement was flawed, autocratic and his saying he doesn't know Larry Ellison has the dull thud of a not all together true and defensive statement.

 

I wish him well and hope he stays in the job as I think he will learn something about process from this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

This from the GGYC's submission:

 

"If the Safety Recommendations were cherry picked, GGYC would face huge liability issues and the Regatta is likely not to continue."

isn't that what im said he would do as well? can the regatta if he didn't get his way? will RN190 will cancel the show?

 

The best way to resolve this was always if the teams could all agree even the few measures that had DR effects.

 

For the event anyway, the worst was always the situation we now face. If IM is true to his word the he will tell the CG that in his opinion the event will not be as safe without the safety rudder regs included, as it would have been with them included.

 

He will obviously have to pull RN189 and then immediately instruct the CG, per the IJ decision and orders. But if the CG then pulls the MEP, well I don't see how any events can continue no matter what boats are supposed to be in what race.

 

'Cancellation' of the AC itself seems very unlikely as the ultimate effect of today's decision but postponements sure do seem a possibility.

 

I hope it can be figured out; but doubt that it is possible to do so quickly with all the regulatory process that is involved.

 

Actually, I think the worst would have been if the IJ had done the split, having the new rudder length / elevator area requirements without the permissive max beam stipulation. That would have scratched AR. I believe the current decision, with the new pressure of getting something agreed-upon so things can progress, provides the avenue for new mutual consent that will allow all of the teams to move forward.

 

But that was never subject of the protest. Why invent it? The Jury never had any reason to rule on that or decide it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

 

 

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.

 

 

 

Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

 

WetHog :ph34r:

I'd like to see his reaction B4 I decide exactly what I think of IM - if its a big hissy fit and attempts to cancel the regatta then not so good. Applogise for the chaos and just get on with it (or resign) then maybe just unwise. I think with AR if you change the class rule for them they need to be able to run with it for the comp. It's a risk for ETNZ and LR but so be it.

 

IM is not going to, nor should he, apologize. All he should do is his job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but most accused IM of being on the take and making his rudder recommendations for the sole purpose of favoring OR.

 

Nonsense. Only an handful of flag-waving Kiwis ever said that.

 

Whether the changes would have favoured OR and whether that was IM's motivation are two different questions entirely. Whether IM's motives were impure or whether his judgement has been poor are two different propositions entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think this is called a shot gun approach

 

173. "

ACRM, ACEA, GGYC and OTUSA submitted that if they were not able to succeed with their arguments with regard to Protocol Article 16, 13.2, and 58.1 to effect the Class Rule
changes provided for in Regatta Notice 189, then the Jury has power to make the Class Rule change under Article 15.4 ( B). The Jury was implored to do this in order to enable the Event to proceed."

paging stingray. clean up required in aisle 42,

 

I think the PR people are still drafting what he needs to say...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

This from the GGYC's submission:

 

"If the Safety Recommendations were cherry picked, GGYC would face huge liability issues and the Regatta is likely not to continue."

isn't that what im said he would do as well? can the regatta if he didn't get his way? will RN190 will cancel the show?

 

The best way to resolve this was always if the teams could all agree even the few measures that had DR effects.

 

For the event anyway, the worst was always the situation we now face. If IM is true to his word the he will tell the CG that in his opinion the event will not be as safe without the safety rudder regs included, as it would have been with them included.

 

He will obviously have to pull RN189 and then immediately instruct the CG, per the IJ decision and orders. But if the CG then pulls the MEP, well I don't see how any events can continue no matter what boats are supposed to be in what race.

 

'Cancellation' of the AC itself seems very unlikely as the ultimate effect of today's decision but postponements sure do seem a possibility.

 

I hope it can be figured out; but doubt that it is possible to do so quickly with all the regulatory process that is involved.

 

Actually, I think the worst would have been if the IJ had done the split, having the new rudder length / elevator area requirements without the permissive max beam stipulation. That would have scratched AR. I believe the current decision, with the new pressure of getting something agreed-upon so things can progress, provides the avenue for new mutual consent that will allow all of the teams to move forward.

 

But that was never subject of the protest. Why invent it? The Jury never had any reason to rule on that or decide it.

 

I certainly did not invent it. ETNZ and LR both supported the longer rudders and elevators (along with OR and AR), but did not support the symmetry/max-beam clauses. The concern would be, in this rather uncommon situation, that the implication was that the length/area clauses had mutual consent, and would be supported by the IJ. The IJ understood the timing issue, with racing already started, and I could see them seeing the case where those two components, that did have universal support, could be considered to have had mutual consent, and decided that they were now part of the rule. Had that happened, then it would have had the impact of what I was concerned about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites