• 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.  
dachopper

Sydney to Hobart 2017

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Dude said:

I disagree.

 

When you compete in a race as tough as the Sydney Hobart, which see's some of the toughest sailing conditions some sailors will ever see, and you come in second, then go sit in a comfortable air conditioned room on shore, presumably drinking coffee, eating food provided by caterers and you win an Ocean Race in which everyone saw you come in second to a team who was better than you were, thats when you lose the respect of your competitors.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, sclarke said:

There was an incident in this past Americas Cup which was pretty much the same thing Port/ Starboard where Jimmy tried to milk a penalty on ETNZ.

Name the race and when?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Got thoroughly dominated offshore by a boat sailed by a new owner in his first race with her. 

Might still get lucky in fluky light winds on occasion. 

Boat is obsolete.

Dominated?

Lucky?

Obsolete?

These comments made by a guy racing an obsolete boat that never gets lucky and is constantly dominated while in a state of electronic paralysis by analysis.    Aren't you suppose to be out pinging the start line in Expedition for the Wednesday night racing in the Estuary?   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sclarke said:

...then go sit in a comfortable air conditioned room on shore, presumably drinking coffee, eating food provided by caterers and...

My guess is you work in hospitality and would like to sail one day? Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, sclarke said:

Even if they do incur a penalty, I would be surprised if its any more than 10 minutes. The penalty has to match the crime. A port/ Starboard situation which resulted in no incident may cost 5-10 minutes, but I would be surprised if the race outcome changes. 

Can you please reference the precise rules and plethora of video evidence  here to support your view this is a port / starboard incident?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

My guess is you work in hospitality and would like to sail one day? Good luck.

For now, I'll have to take that money away and say "for you...The Chase is over" 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Can you please reference the precise rules and plethora of video evidence  here to support your view this is a port / starboard incident?

Jim Cooney “It was a port/starboard infringement. We were the right-of-way boat. They were the give way boat.

“We hailed starboard; they were the give-way boat and they left it until far too late to tack and they tacked right in our water.

“We had to take evasive action or possibly take both of us out of the race. We could have taken their backstay out; they could have broken our bowsprit.”

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, sclarke said:

The only ones who would lose the respect of their competitors are the ones who win an Ocean Race in the Jury room.

The ones who commit a foul, don't do their turns, and force the fouled boat to protest, lose my respect. Doesn't matter if they win or not. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sclarke said:

When you compete in a race as tough as the Sydney Hobart, which see's some of the toughest sailing conditions some sailors will ever see, and you come in second, then go sit in a comfortable air conditioned room on shore, presumably drinking coffee, eating food provided by caterers and you win an Ocean Race in which everyone saw you come in second to a team who was better than you were, thats when you lose the respect of your competitors.

It’s also a shame when the line honors winner broke the rules and didn’t give a fuck. I hope WOXI gets dinged hard enough to lose it, and Comanche declines the honor of winning in the room. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is fantastic armchair judging by the uninformed.   If you want to learn the rules better, read World Sailing Case 50.  It discusses this scenario and talks about Starboard having a "reasonable apprehension of collision".  Given the speed, size of boats, sea state, etc., if you were helming Comanche, you would certainly have a reasonable apprehension of collision and you would alter course so as to not breach RRS 14.   Comanche's argument for dipping their bow slightly (if they did so at all) was that they were trying to avoid a collision in the event WOXI did not tack.   When it was clear that WOXI was tacking, the only way to avoid was to head up.

The word arrogant seems most appropriate for the actions by WOXI during the incident, and the arrogance continues with all of the "we won, we are so great" stuff in the interviews and on the WOXI Facebook page.   It is not uncommon for SOME (but not all) pro sailors to believe they are above the rules, or as MR stated in the interview, it was not a "blatant infringement".   If you read between the lines there, he is not denying that it was an infringement.

My guess is that the "rules experts" aboard WOXI may have misread the SIs, thinking that they would only get a 5 minute penalty if ruled they broke a rule.   If the IJ rules in favor of Comanche,   a time penalty of less than 27 minutes is no penalty at all.  IMHO, the time penalty should be enough to drop them back to 3rd or 4th in Line Honors. 

 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fouls happen, we've all done it. Most of us have let our egos get the better of us and take a case to the room that we shouldn't have. Years ago, my high school team lost out on a berth at nationals over a much more marginal tacking too close DSQ. It's sad that this happened, as there are no good outcomes here. Either:

1. Protest is disallowed; WOXI's win is forever marred by debate over the IJ's decision.

2. WOXI is penalized but still wins; WOXI's win is forever marred by debate over the penalty.

or

3. WOXI is DSQed or penalized such that they lose 1st; Comanche's win is forever marred by the fact that an ultimately inconsequential (time-wise) foul was the only thing that stopped them from losing to an "outdated" boat that most had counted out.

Then again, maybe we're all taking this just a bit too seriously. Has anyone else in the US been getting weird looks from family this week while sneaking a glance at the progress of a sailing race in Australia, or am I the only one?

Also, it's been said elsewhere on this thread but I hate that this is monopolizing the discussion of this race when most of the fleet is still out there, and there are some great stories shaping up in the various handicap standings.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However the protest gets resolved, it's hard to understand the risk-return analysis on WO-XI on the crossing/lee bow incident. The gain from crossing at the start of a 600+ mile race compared to the downside is so hugely asymmetrical that it makes no sense at all. WO-XI should have stayed clear. Furthermore, there is no sensible reason to take the risk of a close cross and possible collision when you have 40+ souls on two boats who could face serious injury or worse in a collision. When big boys try to turn/tack super-maxi yachts as if they were Laser dinghies, bad things can happen. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Monkey said:

It’s also a shame when the line honors winner broke the rules and didn’t give a fuck. I hope WOXI gets dinged hard enough to lose it, and Comanche declines the honor of winning in the room. 

This would be the best solution by far, but highly unlikely. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, couchsurfer said:

...if you're referring to C's slight bear-away,, that's the opposite of hunting.  :mellow:

 

 

Not before W turns up, it blocks any attempt at bear away,

16.2 In addition, when after the starting signal a port-tack boat is keeping clear of a starboard-tack boat, the starboard-tack boat shall not change course if as a result the port-tack boat would immediately need to change course to keep clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Monkey said:

It’s also a shame when the line honors winner broke the rules and didn’t give a fuck. I hope WOXI gets dinged hard enough to lose it, and Comanche declines the honor of winning in the room. 

....that would be an appropriate closure to this.

13 minutes ago, RealEstateBroker said:

This is fantastic armchair judging by the uninformed.   If you want to learn the rules better, read World Sailing Case 50.  It discusses this scenario and talks about Starboard having a "reasonable apprehension of collision".  Given the speed, size of boats, sea state, etc., if you were helming Comanche, you would certainly have a reasonable apprehension of collision and you would alter course so as to not breach RRS 14.   Comanche's argument for dipping their bow slightly (if they did so at all) was that they were trying to avoid a collision in the event WOXI did not tack.   When it was clear that WOXI was tacking, the only way to avoid was to head up.

The word arrogant seems most appropriate for the actions by WOXI during the incident, and the arrogance continues with all of the "we won, we are so great" stuff in the interviews and on the WOXI Facebook page.   It is not uncommon for SOME (but not all) pro sailors to believe they are above the rules, or as MR stated in the interview, it was not a "blatant infringement".   If you read between the lines there, he is not denying that it was an infringement.

...totally agree with your read of the rules., and with comments on arrogance.  <_<

.........It'll be interesting to hear the outcome of this.     Me's hoping for a heaping helping of Egg on Richards' face.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thread for Wanking Anarchy!

Infinite debate at Yacht Club bars for the foreseeable future.

This will go on and on in the finest sporting tradition with insults, ad hominem attacks, insinuation  and unsubstantiated rumor, assuring that the 2017 Sydney Hobart Race was one of the greatest ever. 

SHC

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RealEstateBroker said:

This is fantastic armchair judging by the uninformed.   If you want to learn the rules better, read World Sailing Case 50.  It discusses this scenario and talks about Starboard having a "reasonable apprehension of collision".  Given the speed, size of boats, sea state, etc., if you were helming Comanche, you would certainly have a reasonable apprehension of collision and you would alter course so as to not breach RRS 14.   Comanche's argument for dipping their bow slightly (if they did so at all) was that they were trying to avoid a collision in the event WOXI did not tack.   When it was clear that WOXI was tacking, the only way to avoid was to head up.

The word arrogant seems most appropriate for the actions by WOXI during the incident, and the arrogance continues with all of the "we won, we are so great" stuff in the interviews and on the WOXI Facebook page.   It is not uncommon for SOME (but not all) pro sailors to believe they are above the rules, or as MR stated in the interview, it was not a "blatant infringement".   If you read between the lines there, he is not denying that it was an infringement.

My guess is that the "rules experts" aboard WOXI may have misread the SIs, thinking that they would only get a 5 minute penalty if ruled they broke a rule.   If the IJ rules in favor of Comanche,   a time penalty of less than 27 minutes is no penalty at all.  IMHO, the time penalty should be enough to drop them back to 3rd or 4th in Line Honors. 

 

I agree here. We're not talking dinghies. A collision would have certainly resulted in damage, and possibly injuries. Comanche took the seaman like action to avoid a collision, and did the sportsmanlike thing to file a protest rather than risk damage to either yacht. 

If there was a position penalty instead of a time penalty, it would likely be in the neighborhood of 20%. The time penalty should be that which drops them several spots, approx equal to a position penalty.

WOXI chose to tack as close as they did, and they chose not to do penalty turns. Whatever penalty is assigned at finish is a result of their actions, not Comanche's.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mad said:

This would be the best solution by far, but highly unlikely. 

I agree, but it would leave Cooney looking like a seriously classy boat owner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Monkey said:

I agree, but it would leave Cooney looking like a seriously classy boat owner. 

Exactly!.......he could walk out of the room with his head held high. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think too much of the WO defenders are focused on Comanche being the victim and likely beneficiary of WO being penalized. 

If it wasn't Comanche but some 40fter that got royally shit scared with no line honor implications, you'd have to be a total might make right Victorian valet fluffer to think WO is all clear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ragtime said:

On the other hand, two spins could easily have led to a broken batten or worse and no finish at all, so it is a tough one. 

Ragtime wrote a great story about his Hobart experience that involved time redress. I liked it until I got to the end.

Here is no better example than his own words that respect for rules have gone out the window. 

He says instead of doing 2 spins and potentially breaking battens or worse (bearing in mind we are not out of Sydney Harbour yet, so not exactly the Southern Ocean) it was understandable WOXI, after nearly creating a pile up of biblical proportions, deciding to continue on as if nothing had happened. 

I can't believe people write stuff like this.

So Ragtime what are consequences of Richo's own actions under the rules, understandable actions or not? Does he pay the price just like everyone else or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LionIsland said:

Did Comanche have to change direction to avoid WO before the tack was completed. If you turn the sound off and watch the wake looks straight to me. 

 

There are some seriously deluded and confused people commenting here.  If these people sail, no wonder there are fuck-ups on the water.   The quoted post here is as good an example of the many here.  I haven't seen the rule that says we check the wake.

EDIT:"Did Comanche have to change direction to avoid WO before the tack was completed." ?   YES.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Monkey said:

It’s also a shame when the line honors winner broke the rules and didn’t give a fuck. I hope WOXI gets dinged hard enough to lose it, and Comanche declines the honor of winning in the room. 

I like that senario.   WO did not have my support before this race, I hate stink boats, but after this incident the skipper has last it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Student_Driver said:

However the protest gets resolved, it's hard to understand the risk-return analysis on WO-XI on the crossing/lee bow incident. The gain from crossing at the start of a 600+ mile race compared to the downside is so hugely asymmetrical that it makes no sense at all. WO-XI should have stayed clear. Furthermore, there is no sensible reason to take the risk of a close cross and possible collision when you have 40+ souls on two boats who could face serious injury or worse in a collision. When big boys try to turn/tack super-maxi yachts as if they were Laser dinghies, bad things can happen. 

I'm guessing that WOXI will say they thought they tacked with plenty of time room and that it was only C's bare away that caused it to be close.

C may argue they had to bare away for safety, but that is hard to square with the "we can have a piece of then" comment from the helm.  If it was a bare away for safety then they should have yelled protest at that point not after WOXIs tack

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Monkey said:

It’s also a shame when the line honors winner broke the rules and didn’t give a fuck. I hope WOXI gets dinged hard enough to lose it, and Comanche declines the honor of winning in the room. 

 

18 minutes ago, mad said:

This would be the best solution by far, but highly unlikely. 

 

11 minutes ago, Monkey said:

I agree, but it would leave Cooney looking like a seriously classy boat owner. 

 

9 minutes ago, mad said:

Exactly!.......he could walk out of the room with his head held high. 

 

I only quoted you both to keep the echo going...seriously that would be a win for the sport. 

I really don't give a fuck about the outcome other than for Cooney being jambed into a protest corner where the outcome for him is lose or win/lose because some arrogant fuck has refused to do two 360's in a 650 mile race and thinks he is god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is Comanche’s duty to follow through with the protest.  It’s been discussed a lot around here lately about dropping protests if the end result didn’t harm the fouled boat (if Comanche had won).  Problem with that is the fouling boat gained an advantage by not taking a penalty.  They gained an advantage of every boat competing for correct time IF they fouled.  

It is absolutely not bad sportsmanship for Comanche to pursue.  It’s frankly the correct thing to do.  I don’t care who wins, but glad Comanche is following through.  Some on here should go read the Basic Principles of the RRS again.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sclarke said:

Even if they do incur a penalty, I would be surprised if its any more than 10 minutes. The penalty has to match the crime. A port/ Starboard situation which resulted in no incident may cost 5-10 minutes, but I would be surprised if the race outcome changes. 

That 10 minutes could have seen WO becalmed with Comanche at the finish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
   2 hours ago,  Ragtime said: 

On the other hand, two spins could easily have led to a broken batten or worse and no finish at all, so it is a tough one. 

Risk management. Even if WOXI had pulled off a close cross or tack, the meager gain is far outweighed by the risks...of collision, time lost to do circles, broken gear during circles, or a jury assessed penalty. Rico had the red mist in his eyes, and attempted a low-percentage move that at best would result in near minimal gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Student_Driver said:

However the protest gets resolved, it's hard to understand the risk-return analysis on WO-XI on the crossing/lee bow incident. The gain from crossing at the start of a 600+ mile race compared to the downside is so hugely asymmetrical that it makes no sense at all. WO-XI should have stayed clear. Furthermore, there is no sensible reason to take the risk of a close cross and possible collision when you have 40+ souls on two boats who could face serious injury or worse in a collision. When big boys try to turn/tack super-maxi yachts as if they were Laser dinghies, bad things can happen. 

+1

Doubt whether risk/reward was considered! In the video it simply looks to me like someone helming a boat made a huge and very public blunder. Anyone who has driven a heavy fast boat on port tack knows what should have been done.

Good entertainment for between Christmas and New Year, watching and waiting to see how it pans out though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SCANAS said:

Iain Murray has had at least 1 day 8 hours & 40 minutes to get his case together, probably a few calls made on the sat phone too. 

Race rules forbid private communications while racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, RKoch said:

I agree here. We're not talking dinghies. A collision would have certainly resulted in damage, and possibly injuries. Comanche took the seaman like action to avoid a collision, and did the sportsmanlike thing to file a protest rather than risk damage to either yacht. 

 

Not just seaman or sportsman like - simply following the rules. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are some of  you really racing sailors or members of the Hail Fellow Well Met Yacht Club (HFWMYC). This isn't Opti Green Fleet sailing. There was an incident, a  protest flag was flown etc. etc..Options open to both parties were taken or not taken based on judgements made at the time. So now that incident can be examined by an independent (we hope ) I J. That's it fellas. Nothing to do with bad sportsmanship.  Protests are part of the way our sport is played.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, armchairadmiral said:

Are some of  you really racing sailors or members of the Hail Fellow Well Met Yacht Club (HFWMYC). This isn't Opti Green Fleet sailing. There was an incident, a  protest flag was flown etc. etc..Options open to both parties were taken or not taken based on judgements made at the time. So now that incident can be examined by an independent (we hope ) I J. That's it fellas. Nothing to do with bad sportsmanship.  Protests are part of the way our sport is played.

Exactally what I was about to say but you said it better than I could. 

There is nothing wrong with getting in a protest from either side and a win shouldn't be marred by it, protests are a very well established part of the sport, not a bad part, just a part. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOXI had only one choice after fouling Comanche, which I believe is near indisputable. Do their 720. Most exexperienced sailors would not gamble an entire 650 mile ocean race on a bet that on port tack they didn't foul a starboard tacker in that close a situation, period. Even if WOXI lost a mile doing their turns, the chances that mile in the beginning would make a difference in the end is near zero. Moreover, Richards and his crew will have to live with a tainted result, regardless of whether exonerated in the protest room or not, because a large cohort of witnesses to the incident, including me, will never accept such exoneration with I consider to be a mountain of video evidence to the contrary. I recognize there are politics and financial ramifications that regrettably may sway the IJ. I sincerely hope that I am wrong about this. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, gregwilkins said:

I'm guessing that WOXI will say they thought they tacked with plenty of time room and that it was only C's bare away that caused it to be close.

Why put your boat and the race at risk with this your best defense. If WO-XI had ducked or otherwise avoided a close encounter with C, they'd have won cleanly. 

Again, the risk of trying a port cross was much greater than any potential gain.

If the incident is close enough that it causes informed debate, then it's too close.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Tornado_ALIVE said:

That 10 minutes could have seen WO becalmed with Comanche at the finish.

Could've/ should've/ would've. I think people need to keep it in perspective. Wild Oats isn't losing this race over a Port/ Starboard situation. At most they will receive a time penalty. We can mull over the rules and their interpretations all we want, but as in any sport, when handing out a punishment, the punishment must fit the infringement. A disqualification does not fit the infringement. A time penalty is the only punishment that fits. Given there was no incident that resulted from the situation the time penalty will be minimal. If there was contact between the boats, and any damage resulted in an inability to race the boat at optimal, or worse, withdrawal from the race altogether, it would be different. Wild Oats would probably be disqualified outright. I think its highly unlikely Wild Oats XI will lose the race, and I think a lot of other people think its highly unlikely as well.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, mad said:

 

51 minutes ago, Monkey said:

I agree, but it would leave Cooney looking like a seriously classy boat owner. 

Exactly!.......he could walk out of the room with his head held high. 

 

And what would that achieve?  Does he get a trophy and a Rolex for that?

The best outcome after someone does not observe the rules, without protest, is for the other party to stick strictly to the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sclarke said:

Could've/ should've/ would've. I think people need to keep it in perspective. Wild Oats isn't losing this race over a Port/ Starboard situation. At most they will receive a time penalty. We can mull over the rules and their interpretations all we want, but as in any sport, when handing out a punishment, the punishment must fit the infringement. A disqualification does not fit the infringement. A time penalty is the only punishment that fits. Given there was no incident that resulted from the situation the time penalty will be minimal. If there was contact between the boats, and any damage resulted in an inability to race the boat at optimal, or worse, withdrawal from the race altogether, it would be different. Wild Oats would probably be disqualified outright. I think its highly unlikely Wild Oats XI will lose the race, and I think a lot of other people think its highly unlikely as well.

I’ve now realized you’re not just an idiot, but someone I would never wish to sail with. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, longy said:

Didnt Windward Passage lose a T-Pac win for hitting another boat's stern mounted ssb whip at the start??

Cost her the race & a record time. 2 hr penalty?. WO could have done circles, worry about battens breaking is not relevant - wasnt that windy, & they could have slowed down the turns to control the jibes properly. They made a gamble, now they'll face the jury.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sclarke said:

Could've/ should've/ would've. I think people need to keep it in perspective. Wild Oats isn't losing this race over a Port/ Starboard situation. At most they will receive a time penalty. We can mull over the rules and their interpretations all we want, but as in any sport, when handing out a punishment, the punishment must fit the infringement. A disqualification does not fit the infringement. A time penalty is the only punishment that fits. Given there was no incident that resulted from the situation the time penalty will be minimal. If there was contact between the boats, and any damage resulted in an inability to race the boat at optimal, or worse, withdrawal from the race altogether, it would be different. Wild Oats would probably be disqualified outright. I think its highly unlikely Wild Oats XI will lose the race, and I think a lot of other people think its highly unlikely as well.

I fundamentally disagree. Two 100 footers should do whatever is in their collective power to avoid a collision, as should two Lasers. The only difference, and it is a big one, is that 100 footers colliding could put human lives at risk. As to punishment, I would argue WOXI's move was reckless at best and incredibly unseamanlike at worst. The punishment should both fit the foul and send a message that maybe the next time, one should be more prudent. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry , I can not agree Wild Oats X1 holds 9 line honour wins . Wild Oats X1 has been radically modified many times (almost every year since launched) , so could not and should not be classed as the same yacht. I am sure she would not be given age allowance back to her original launch ????  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching Cooney's interview with Nic Douglas I have to say that I think he presented the motivation behind the protest in a very reasonable and sportsmanlike way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, axolotl said:

Race rules forbid private communications while racing.

Depends on which set of rules they’re playing to. :ph34r:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Student_Driver said:

However the protest gets resolved, it's hard to understand the risk-return analysis on WO-XI on the crossing/lee bow incident. The gain from crossing at the start of a 600+ mile race compared to the downside is so hugely asymmetrical that it makes no sense at all. WO-XI should have stayed clear. Furthermore, there is no sensible reason to take the risk of a close cross and possible collision when you have 40+ souls on two boats who could face serious injury or worse in a collision. When big boys try to turn/tack super-maxi yachts as if they were Laser dinghies, bad things can happen. 

I doubt there was any risk-return analysis; it looks like pure ego.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, SCANAS said:

LB & Lydia your club RQ just posted that Comanche won Line Honours. 

My club? Fuck that place! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's 13 boats in IRC Div 0, a 20% position penalty is 2.6 places. That's equal to a 90 minute elapsed time penalty (SIs specify the penalty applied to elapsed time), as the difference between 2 spots and 3 spots is only 2 minutes. 90 minutes seems reasonable alternative to dsq. If WO thinks it's too harsh, they should have done their turns.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, sclarke said:

Could've/ should've/ would've. I think people need to keep it in perspective. Wild Oats isn't losing this race over a Port/ Starboard situation. At most they will receive a time penalty. We can mull over the rules and their interpretations all we want, but as in any sport, when handing out a punishment, the punishment must fit the infringement. A disqualification does not fit the infringement. A time penalty is the only punishment that fits. Given there was no incident that resulted from the situation the time penalty will be minimal. If there was contact between the boats, and any damage resulted in an inability to race the boat at optimal, or worse, withdrawal from the race altogether, it would be different. Wild Oats would probably be disqualified outright. I think its highly unlikely Wild Oats XI will lose the race, and I think a lot of other people think its highly unlikely as well.

You do not understand the RRS. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, gesail1 said:

I fundamentally disagree. Two 100 footers should do whatever is in their collective power to avoid a collision, as should two Lasers. The only difference, and it is a big one, is that 100 footers colliding could put human lives at risk. As to punishment, I would argue WOXI's move was reckless at best and incredibly unseamanlike at worst. The punishment should both fit the foul and send a message that maybe the next time, one should be more prudent. 

I agree, however, if either boat did not do everything in their power to avoid, they would have hit each other. The fact that there was no contact between the boats is proof enough that there was enough room to keep clear of each other. If the boats had've hit each other, then we would see a much harsher penalty, probably an outright disqualification. IMO I think those who think WOXI should be disqualified or placed back to 3rd or fourth are howling at the moon. If you're going to place WO back in 3rd or 4th, you might as well disqualify her altogether, as she would have been last to finish out of all the supermaxis anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sclarke said:

I agree, however, if either boat did not do everything in their power to avoid, they would have hit each other. The fact that there was no contact between the boats is proof enough that there was enough room to keep clear of each other. If the boats had've hit each other, then we would see a much harsher penalty, probably an outright disqualification. IMO I think those who think WOXI should be disqualified or placed back to 3rd or fourth are howling at the moon. If you're going to place WO back in 3rd or 4th, you might as well disqualify her altogether, as she would have been last to finish out of all the supermaxis anyway.

No. A 90 minute penalty drops them to second in line honors, drops them 3 spots in Div 0 (about 20%), and several spots IRC overall (so many boats not finished, but it would be somewhere between 10 and 20%).  That  seems a reasonable penalty.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sclarke said:

I agree, however, if either boat did not do everything in their power to avoid, they would have hit each other. The fact that there was no contact between the boats is proof enough that there was enough room to keep clear of each other. If the boats had've hit each other, then we would see a much harsher penalty, probably an outright disqualification. IMO I think those who think WOXI should be disqualified or placed back to 3rd or fourth are howling at the moon. If you're going to place WO back in 3rd or 4th, you might as well disqualify her altogether, as she would have been last to finish out of all the supermaxis anyway.

You are a complete homer.

  look in the mirror and ask yourself if you would feel the same if the rolls were reversed??

 

  I thought not...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I would go and give Richards an informal education and some summary jurisdiction if I were on Comanche.  Prat.  If there is no significant penalty here then people will do the same thing in future.  Aside from the RRoS, WO appears to have committed an offence in Maritime law.  We certainly don't want to show the Police that we support and encourage behaviour that would invite their interest.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ichiban nearing finish, has a 2 hour cushion for overall IRC win. Quest currently 3rd on IRC handicap, in storm bay with an hour and a half cushion.  Chutzpah currently second on handicap, nearly tied with Ichiban, but is 100 miles out and I think wind is going to go to shit on them. They'll still likely take Div 2, will probably be in top 5 overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you provide a link to the interview?  I looked on the Adventures of a Sailor Girl facebook page and skipped around in the posted vids but couldn't find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jah said:

Could you provide a link to the interview?  I looked on the Adventures of a Sailor Girl facebook page and skipped around in the posted vids but couldn't find it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Raked Aft\\ said:

You are a complete homer.

  look in the mirror and ask yourself if you would feel the same if the rolls were reversed??

 

  I thought not...

If the rolls were reversed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Ichiban nearing finish, has a 2 hour cushion for overall IRC win. Quest currently 3rd on IRC handicap, in storm bay with an hour and a half cushion.  Chutzpah currently second on handicap, nearly tied with Ichiban, but is 100 miles out and I think wind is going to go to shit on them. They'll still likely take Div 2, will probably be in top 5 overall.

Not knowing any of them, I’ve gotta chear for Chutzpah, being the little guy. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ozmultis said:

Personally I would go and give Richards an informal education and some summary jurisdiction if I were on Comanche.  Prat.  If there is no significant penalty here then people will do the same thing in future.  Aside from the RRoS, WO appears to have committed an offence in Maritime law.  We certainly don't want to show the Police that we support and encourage behaviour that would invite their interest.  

Bloody hell, somebody call the Hague. There may even be Crimes Against Humanity involved.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best solution IMHO is for WO to RAF, yet hold their heads high knowing the old girl still has legs and can hold her own against anyone including C. So much better than taking it the room and letting a jury decide.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Monkey said:

Not knowing any of them, I’ve gotta chear for Chutzpah, being the little guy. 

Yeah, I like to cheer for a well-sailed little boat also.  But the wind outside goes to shit in about 12 hours, and I don't think Chutzpah can hang on. They'll still score well, but overall it's not looking to be a good race for the little guys. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Varan said:

Best solution IMHO is for WO to RAF, yet hold their heads high knowing the old girl still has legs and can hold her own against anyone including C. So much better than taking it the room and letting a jury decide.

Once they decided not to do turns, their best bet is to admit guilt to the IJ and beg for mercy. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Yeah, I like to cheer for a well-sailed little boat also.  But the wind outside goes to shit in about 12 hours, and I don't think Chutzpah can hang on. They'll still score well, but overall it's not looking to be a good race for the little guys. 

Chutzpah should be in storm bay in 5 hours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Raked Aft\\ said:

You are a complete homer.

  look in the mirror and ask yourself if you would feel the same if the rolls were reversed??

 

  I thought not...

He wouldn't.  There is a whole forum (ACA) full of sclarke and his Kiwi friends bitching about much the same kind of stuff.  Shit goes back 10 years, at least.  :lol:  

WetHog  :ph34r:  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, ozmultis said:

 Aside from the RRoS, WO appears to have committed an offence in Maritime law

There is no "Aside from the RRoS", where the RRS is in force, COLREGS is not. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WetHog said:

He wouldn't.  There is a whole forum (ACA) full of sclarke and his Kiwi friends bitching about much the same kind of stuff.  Shit goes back 10 years, at least.  :lol:  

WetHog  :ph34r:  

As opposed to those who bag everything Kiwi yet they were only Oracle fans when it suited them.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sclarke said:

The only ones who would lose the respect of their competitors are the ones who win an Ocean Race in the Jury room.

Go and play golf stupidclarke, no better cricket: Howzat, and you are out!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, random said:

There is no "Aside from the RRoS", where the RRS is in force, COLREGS is not. 

 

I wasnt referring to Colregs, there is more to sailing than the Colregs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, WetHog said:

He wouldn't.  There is a whole forum (ACA) full of sclarke and his Kiwi friends bitching about much the same kind of stuff.  Shit goes back 10 years, at least.  :lol:  

WetHog  :ph34r:  

I thought I’d seen him before. The rabid fanboy is strong in this one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For rules fans,

https://www.sailingillustrated.com/single-post/2017/12/27/Facebook-Live-Today-A-mock-protest-hearing-between-reps-of-LDV-COMANCHE-and-WILD-OATS-XI-moderated-by-TFE-with-our-viewers-as-the-Jury

Facebook Live Today: A mock protest hearing between "reps" of LDV COMANCHE and WILD OATS XI, moderated by TFE with our viewers as the Jury

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

TOM EHMAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's clear to me that we need an international jury decision on this incident, not for the race result but for SA and other sailing forums....

Assuming the IJ do find an infringement (seems likely on my viewing) I'm not sure what I'd like to see as the penalty. If I consider the impact on the race results, I doubt anything would have changed if WOIX had tacked earlier or if they had done a couple of 360's. However, to risk breaking both boats forcing requirements, does seem to be an unnecessary risk and in that sense a harsh penalty (loose race/record or even disq) should be dealt out.

Then again shit happens in racing and do we want to nanny state yacht racing even more than it is now.

For the CYCA & 7, the incident has given them even more promotion.

Conflicted.... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sclarke said:

As opposed to those who bag everything Kiwi yet they were only Oracle fans when it suited them.

Suited them?  You mean having the integrity to call your favorite AC team for pulling shady shit?  Guilty.  When will you do the same of your beloved ETNZ?  I won't hold my breath.

I bag on fuckwit Kiwi's on ACA.  Hardly everything Kiwi.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites