dachopper

Sydney to Hobart 2017

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, RealEstateBroker said:

Based on the WS policy, a penalty of 20-30% would seem in line with WS guidelines.   WOXI elapsed time is approx. 33 hours.  Therefore, a 20% penalty would be 6 hours 36 minutes.

Pretty simple.

I think the percentage is supposed to be positions, not time. SIs specify an elapsed time penalty, greater than 5 minutes.  If we assume WO is guilty, the foul was deliberate (not accidental), it did hinder C to a small extent, and WO did not accept blame; then a time penalty that results in 10-20% drop of position seems appropriate. That's something like 90 minutes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Jeezuz. The set of rules for the race is defined in the NOR, and changes to said rules are delineated in the NOR.  For this year's race, rule 41 has been changed:

9.3 Changes to the Racing Rules of Sailing

RRS 41: Whilst racing a boat may retrieve data from any page of the event website details of which are provided in the Sailing Instructions, even if that page is not publicly available. During the race a boat shall not contact, or be in contact with, any person or private entity using any medium to receive private meteorological forecasts, tactical advice or information customised for a particular boat or group of boats, however a boat may obtain assistance in the form of any readily available commercial meteorological or hydrographical information regardless of cost. Amends RRS 41(c).

Clearly, consulting with your shoreside rules guru by satphone during the race is prohibited.

Did you want me to use the sarcasm font for you next time??

Share this post


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

Yes interesting, all good, not tricky.  All that means is that if there is a permit to run an event under RRS then RRS applies.  Still one or the other.

Still does not matter if the other states do not have the same clause, as RRS covers the interaction between competing and non-competing boats.  Where there is a sanctioned RRS race then Colregs does not apply at all to vessels that have accepted RRS Rule 3.

 

Yes, tricky, this is an interstate voyage with 2 permits in different jurisdictions.

But I am not answering that question here.

 

Share this post


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

Yes, tricky, this is an interstate voyage with 2 permits in different jurisdictions.

But I am not answering that question here.

 

Where is the conflict?  I don't see what this has to do with the 2017 S2H.  What am I missing?

Share this post


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

Yes interesting, all good, not tricky.  All that means is that if there is a permit to run an event under RRS then RRS applies.  Still one or the other.

Still does not matter if the other states do not have the same clause, as RRS covers the interaction between competing and non-competing boats.  Where there is a sanctioned RRS race then Colregs does not apply at all to vessels that have accepted RRS Rule 3.

 

WTF? Where do you get the notion that non-competing boats are subject to RRS? That's completely not the case,  and a boat racing is subject to Colregs when interacting with a non-competing boat, just as they would be with a freighter, fishing boat engaged in fishing, or a human-powered boat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Protest set down for 3pm. 

Midnight here. Don't think I'll stay up...will look for decision in AM.

Share this post


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

WTF? Where do you get the notion that non-competing boats are subject to RRS?

Where did I say it did?

Share this post


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

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

Good conversation but over an hour. Here is the summary.

Best defense, but a weak one, for WO-XI is that they'd completed their turn and had rights before C had to alter course.

Unless additional/better video evidence is available to the IJ, most felt that a penalty should be handed down.

Interesting discussion about the evolution of RRS and the old 'hard on' rule which would have made this a clear cut case.

Share this post


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

Did you want me to use the sarcasm font for you next time??

Yup.  Or write in plain language so there's no confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jackolantern said:

 

33 minutes ago, RKoch said:

The head might still be original.

The wheels are probably original too.

But there's just as much crap going on at the wheels as in the head. 

 

And before they leave the dock it is "gentlemen, start your engines".

 

Share this post


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

I think the percentage is supposed to be positions, not time. SIs specify an elapsed time penalty, greater than 5 minutes.  If we assume WO is guilty, the foul was deliberate (not accidental), it did hinder C to a small extent, and WO did not accept blame; then a time penalty that results in 10-20% drop of position seems appropriate. That's something like 90 minutes.

If it were a deliberate breach of a rule, surely it'd be R2? (For the record, I'm not convinced that it was).

Share this post


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

Where did I say it did.  It describes the rules for interactions between competing and non-competing, read it.

RRS covers the interaction between competing and non-competing boats.

Id venture to say that 90% of the time a non-competing boat is completely unaware of the RRS, and often completely unaware of Colregs. 

Share this post


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

And before they leave the dock it is "gentlemen, start your engines".

 

Surprised you've not had any bites playing that one, Random. You've been plugging away with it for quite a while now. Bit of old squid is it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DFL1010 said:

If it were a deliberate breach of a rule, surely it'd be R2? (For the record, I'm not convinced that it was).

Well, it wasn't accidental, i.e.: two boats drifting in to each other on the tide, or forced into each other by other yachts fouling them. WO chose to tack when they did, not a boat length or two earlier...therefore it was deliberate. Up to IJ to decide if it was a foul.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Good conversation but over an hour. Here is the summary.

Best defense, but a weak one, for WO-XI is that they'd completed their turn and had rights before C had to alter course.

Unless additional/better video evidence is available to the IJ, most felt that a penalty should be handed down.

Interesting discussion about the evolution of RRS and the old 'hard on' rule which would have made this a clear cut case.

Agree.

Lighthearted but included a well-informed guest list.

Share this post


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

Surprised you've not had any bites playing that one, Random. You've been plugging away with it for quite a while now. Bit of old squid is it? 

He's only happy when he has sand in his vagina giving him something to whine about it.

Share this post


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

He's only happy when he has sand in his vagina giving him something to whine about it.

I was just surprised anyone actually quoted him. I thought pretty much every regular around here had him on ignore. 

Share this post


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

Well, it wasn't accidental, i.e.: two boats drifting in to each other on the tide, or forced into each other by other yachts fouling them. WO chose to tack when they did, not a boat length or two earlier...therefore it was deliberate. Up to IJ to decide if it was a foul.

Ah I see what you mean.

My understanding of the word 'intentional' in this context was something along the lines of "I know we're keep clear, but I don't care. I'm going to do what I want, if they want to avoid so be it".

To me the more likely scenario in this instance was three thoughts in conflict:

  • We're going to cross, hold course;
  • We're not going to cross, better duck;
  • We're not going to cross, better tack.

And, for some reason, wires got crossed, the convo got derailed, whatever, and nothing happened until too late.To me that's negligence rather than malice and generally part of racing as we know it.

So, I agree with your conclusion, but perhaps not the terminology ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, random said:

Still waiting, I want to hear this ...

Hey Randum, if you are going to make quotes don't put my name to something I did not write

 

Share this post


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

I was just surprised anyone actually quoted him. I thought pretty much every regular around here had him on ignore. 

My bad quoting him. He's still an amusing ass-clown, but at some point he'll become tiresome and I'll also put him on ignore. There's only a few posters on SA that spew such utter nonsense.

Share this post


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

My bad quoting him. He's still an amusing ass-clown, but at some point he'll become tiresome and I'll also put him on ignore. There's only a few posters on SA that spew such utter nonsense.

I’m waiting for the part where he goes off claiming Comanche was responsible for 9/11. He’s already spouted off every other idiotic theory, so it’s just a matter of time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DFL1010 said:

Ah I see what you mean.

My understanding of the word 'intentional' in this context was something along the lines of "I know we're keep clear, but I don't care. I'm going to do what I want, if they want to avoid so be it".

To me the more likely scenario in this instance was three thoughts in conflict:

  • We're going to cross, hold course;
  • We're not going to cross, better duck;
  • We're not going to cross, better tack.

And, for some reason, wires got crossed, the convo got derailed, whatever, and nothing happened until too late.To me that's negligence rather than malice and generally part of racing as we know it.

So, I agree with your conclusion, but perhaps not the terminology ;)

Yeah. Although they didn't intend to foul, it was still an intentional act. That's not as egregious as intending to foul, but more serious than a pure accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

Surprised you've not had any bites playing that one, Random. You've been plugging away with it for quite a while now. Bit of old squid is it? 

But a good squid.  The lack of bite means that no one is prepared to defend diesels needed to haul a sail in.

Edit: It's like that old fable about the emporer's new clothes.  Only this time it is ...

Grommet: "Daddy but they have a motor that's used to drive the boat, I thought you said that was a bad thing, not what sailing is about?."

Daddy: "Yes, well it's like this dear, ah well, you see .. the sails are really big and .... uh hum .... "

Grommet: "So it is ok to use engines to make sailing boats go then daddy?"

Share this post


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

But a good squid.  The lack of bite means that no one is prepared to defend diesels needed to haul a sail in.

Batteries would be much more environmentally friendly, right? ;)

Share this post


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

But a good squid.  The lack of bite means that no one is prepared to defend diesels needed to haul a sail in.

What it boils down to is that it's CYCA's race, and they can set the rules as they see fit. You are free to organize your own race under your rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LB 15 said:

My club? Fuck that place! 

Still haven't taken it down. 13hrs later. 

(RQ saying Comanche won) 

Share this post


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

The massive flaw with your theory is that by putting the bow down to “hunt”, it simply made the cross easier for WOXI. 

Comanche put her bow down when it looked like WOXI was going to hold course. That’s the responsible thing to do if you don’t want to crunch 200’ worth of billionaires’ money. 

Then numbnuts decided to tack....

I thought C put the bow down a minute out.  That's more than 5 boat lengths.  It's kind of what the Hunt is.  Put the bow down to convince a port tacker he is making it and then dial back up so he can't.  If he was already ducking that's when we should have heard the screaming protest shouldn't we? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going sailing this afternoon and I'm going to stick it to every starboard tacker I can find.   Fuck them, it's all different now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cap't Billy said:

I thought C put the bow down a minute out.

Oh, really?  Try a few seconds out when JS instinctively had a look at a crash duck but there was no room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cap't Billy said:

I thought C put the bow down a minute out.  That's more than 5 boat lengths.  It's kind of what the Hunt is.  Put the bow down to convince a port tacker he is making it and then dial back up so he can't.  If he was already ducking that's when we should have heard the screaming protest shouldn't we? 

A minute out is closer to 9-10 boat lengths. But whether C bore off a bit or not is irrelevant. They are permitted to do so, as long as they don't prevent WO from keeping clear. WO had the option of tacking a boat length earlier, C did not prevent them from doing so. Had WO tacked a boat length earlier, there would have been no foul or risk of collision. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cap't Billy said:

I thought C put the bow down a minute out.  That's more than 5 boat lengths.  It's kind of what the Hunt is.  Put the bow down to convince a port tacker he is making it and then dial back up so he can't.  If he was already ducking that's when we should have heard the screaming protest shouldn't we? 

Nice theory and all, but the video shows pretty clearly it’s just a quick turn down, then right back to course once they realize WOXI caught a case of the stupid. 

Edit:  and 5 boat lengths is laughable. Try somewhere between 1/2 and 1. 

Share this post


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

Dude!  you spend a vast amount of your time contributing to various very popular forums about this sport with humour, insight and a whole bunch of vulgarity and insult!    So you are going to say that a simple contested port starboard incident brings our sport into disrepute!?!?!?  You think all of the opti sailing kiddies should stop he interview he has given since the finishro worshipping WOXI and instead read your wise words and learn how to behave in a reputable way!?!?!?!?

Get some perspective!  Yes they do spend a lot of money on a motor boat that is entirely unlike the experience most of us have sailing.  They may also have broken rules 10, 13 and maybe a few more... but taking your defence to the room doesn't invoke rule 69.

 

It is not just the incident itself. It is the smart arse attitude that Richo has displayed in every interview since the finish.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It is not just the incident itself. It is the smart arse attitude that Richo has displayed in every interview since the finish.

See this is what I don't get...what do you mean by "smart arse attitude"? The guy just won one of the worlds greatest ocean races for a record 9th time, while beating the worlds newest and fastest racing boat and smashing the previous course record! If that's not worth celebrating I don't know what is! What was he supposed to do? cry because Comanche has protested and say I'm sorry I won? Give the guy a break!

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


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

Beachball smoked Concubine in the river

What, the most underperforming TP 52 in the race goes ahead of a 45 footer in the river.

Oh-ya!!!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the smart arse attitude he displays with reference to the protest incident not the race generally.

When he first got off the boat last night he said something like " We did nothing wrong. I don't know what all the fuss is about. They should withdraw the protest. "

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Notice of Protest

Hearing to be held at the RYCT, Thursday 28 December 2017 at 1500hrs

1. LDV Comanche v Wild Oats XI

Posted: 0100hrs 28/12/17

Sorry if someone posted this already

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sisu3360 said:

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?

Brilliant! Thanks for a good laugh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concubine, Indian, and Patrice are all very well sailed boats, but you wonder why those owners chose to go for the mid 40's boats rather than a TP..? Those three boats have all been built in the last 4 years and I can't imagine that the campaigning costs would be too different than a 52, especially considering the huge market of barely used med cup 52 sails. 

I'm in no way deriding those owners over purchasing those boats, but it seems like a strange niche in-between the fast 40's and 52's/C50's.

 

Share this post


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

Tp52 costs twice a 40 to run over a few years

I think ASP meant buying a used TP52 versus building a new fast 45-46, not 40' 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True but building a fast 45 with all new kit is close to $1m you could buy a used TP52 will all the gear for $500-600k like beach ball (ex ichi) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sailabout said:

Tp52 costs twice a 40 to run over a few years

They're not a 40's though. Concubine is 45, Patrice 46 and Indian 47. 

How much more expensive is a main for a 47 footer than a 52 footer..

Share this post


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

See this is what I don't get...what do you mean by "smart arse attitude"? The guy just won one of the worlds greatest ocean races for a record 9th time, while beating the worlds newest and fastest racing boat and smashing the previous course record! If that's not worth celebrating I don't know what is! What was he supposed to do? cry because Comanche has protested and say I'm sorry I won? Give the guy a break!

Do you swallow or spit?

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ease the sheet said:

100 ft boat at 10 knots. 1 minute is 1 boat length. Simple.

No 100 ft boat is a 30 metre boat. 1 knot is 0.5 m/s. 10 knots is 1 boat length per 6 seconds. You are factor 10 out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

Is there a realistic chance that if the protest is upheld the result will change ?

Because if it does I don’t think that punishment fits the crime. I’m not a big fan of the motorboat but that last leg up the Derwent was as fine a piece of tactical sailing as you will see. The man up the mast spotting for breeze was a brilliant move. 

While I’m here, well done and thanks to sailor girl for the live feed. Made my day. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Guys,

Is there a realistic chance that if the protest is upheld the result will change ?

Because if it does I don’t think that punishment fits the crime. I’m not a big fan of the motorboat but that last leg up the Derwent was as fine a piece of tactical sailing as you will see. The man up the mast spotting for breeze was a brilliant move. 

While I’m here, well done and thanks to sailor girl for the live feed. Made my day. 

Easy to look smart when your boat has an extra 2-3 knots of BS in the light stuff. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The man up the mast spotting for breeze was a brilliant move. 

 

You'll find they all do, they need a bloke up there to pop the top battens in the light. Spotter as well of course.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Easy to look smart when your boat has an extra 2-3 knots of BS in the light stuff. 

They old saying "Boat Speed makes you a tactical genius"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mp1970 said:

Notice of Protest

Hearing to be held at the RYCT, Thursday 28 December 2017 at 1500hrs

1. LDV Comanche v Wild Oats XI

Posted: 0100hrs 28/12/17

 

This'll be pretty interesting.  :mellow:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Redreuben said:

Guys,

Is there a realistic chance that if the protest is upheld the result will change ?

Because if it does I don’t think that punishment fits the crime. I’m not a big fan of the motorboat but that last leg up the Derwent was as fine a piece of tactical sailing as you will see. The man up the mast spotting for breeze was a brilliant move. 

While I’m here, well done and thanks to sailor girl for the live feed. Made my day. 

If the time penalty doesn't cost them any positions, then there's no penalty for a rules infraction. They had the option to do turns, and decided to take it to a jury. That has to carry a risk. BITD it would have been a dsq, so whatever penalty they might get is already much more lenient.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Wizard gets back to U.S. will she own the east coast races now that Comanche is staying down here?

Pretty impressive outing for their first race on the boat

Share this post


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

When Wizard gets back to U.S. will she own the east coast races now that Comanche is staying down here?

Pretty impressive outing for their first race on the boat

 True. They had some experienced guys on. 

R Clarke (4), M White (14), C McAsey, P Trinter, R Bearda (11), M Parker (5), B Jenkins, R Keenan (18), R McGarvie (11), N Drennan (31), D Miller (1), C Larson (1), R Steitz (3)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, frant said:

No 100 ft boat is a 30 metre boat. 1 knot is 0.5 m/s. 10 knots is 1 boat length per 6 seconds. You are factor 10 out.

Correct. Well spotted.

I'll be over on the rail if anyone has anymore nav questions.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big hole has developed SE of Tasman island, where the seabreeze is fighting the northerly. Chutzpah is just getting in it. Ugly for them. Boats behind coming up with the northerly, but by the time they get to Storm Bay the sea breeze may have quit and they'll have to drift up the Derwent. When it rains, it pours.

Share this post


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

A minute out is closer to 9-10 boat lengths. But whether C bore off a bit or not is irrelevant. They are permitted to do so, as long as they don't prevent WO from keeping clear. WO had the option of tacking a boat length earlier, C did not prevent them from doing so. Had WO tacked a boat length earlier, there would have been no foul or risk of collision. 

On TFE's Sailing Illustrated he held a mock protest hearing with two guys presenting each boats case. Vast majority, like 90% called for a 30 min. penalty. And the participants were from all over the place, not just the US or AUS.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, solosailor said:

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?   

Not until April, this time of year it’s Sat and Sunday afternoons. Pay attention. And we don’t get lucky, we just won or division in Interclub on the bay vs losing on the Estuary in less than  5 kts wind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ~HHN92~ said:

On TFE's Sailing Illustrated he held a mock protest hearing with two guys presenting each boats case. Vast majority, like 90% called for a 30 min. penalty. And the participants were from all over the place, not just the US or AUS.

Although Rico and the WOXI knob-slobberers might think that's harsh, because it will cost WO line honors, IMO it would be as lenient as possible. Anything less would be in effect no penalty at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ~HHN92~ said:

On TFE's Sailing Illustrated he held a mock protest hearing with two guys presenting each boats case. Vast majority, like 90% called for a 30 min. penalty. And the participants were from all over the place, not just the US or AUS.

Jeeezus. Next they'll be wrangling an ugly lynch mob to hand out Hobart vigilante justice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richo's quotes to the ABC. My emphasis.

"If that was a blatant infringement then obviously we would do our turn but it actually wasn't,"

"In our minds we were clear ahead and we've got video footage to prove it."

"If you read the rule book we did the right thing and that's all there is to it."

Infringements are infringements so whether they are "blatant" or flagrant or not is irrelevant. However he is probably saying that in the context of it being a clear case of there being no infringement.

His absolute conviction that all was dandy is troubling because it is obvious something occured and immediately debatable as to whether it was an infringement or not. The wide ranging debate in this room is testimony to that. However that "clarity debate" came to an end the moment the other boat protested.

"Clear ahead", what is that supposed to mean? Is it Richo speak for we had completed the tack and therefore had rights?

"We did the right thing", I'm assuming refers to not doing the 720, not defending the worst lee bow in 100' history. 

The entire concept of the penalty turn is to leave doubt on the water and not force a jury to decide it. Juries hate being put in that position and more so in long distance races when penalty turns probably have little impact on the end result. This "piss the jury off before you get in the room factor" is maybe one thing Richo has overlooked. I know some argue that is enough to warrant a DSQ to send a clear message to competitors about penalty turns.

Anyway not a lot of insight into what is in his head. One thought that should, is grateful for Spithill and his bowman doing a pretty good avoidance number.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

See this is what I don't get...what do you mean by "smart arse attitude"? The guy just won one of the worlds greatest ocean races for a record 9th time, while beating the worlds newest and fastest racing boat and smashing the previous course record! If that's not worth celebrating I don't know what is! What was he supposed to do? cry because Comanche has protested and say I'm sorry I won? Give the guy a break!

You are a complete sailing moron.

This was a very normal Port/Starboard situation.

The only abnormal part of this situation is that it was 15 mins into a +600nm race and the 2 boats involved were worth multi million $$$, And they were 30m long FFS!

If WO was keeping clear we would not be discussing this.

The RRS and the SI's stipulate an 'alternative' penalty may be taken. WO chose not to take it.

Now the IJ will deal with it.

My take on penalty is that if you choose not to take the 'alternative' penalty and subsequently lose in the room it should be, and usually is DSQ.

It was a dumb move by Ricko.

Incidentally I thought WO stuffed the start by trying to barge at the windward end, in amongst a raft of smaller boats. That's what he seemed to lining up until it became apparent that there were NO holes. By then it was too late and too light to get to the line.

Another dumb move.

FFS. Is Brass on holidays?

Additionally Rickos comments after the race were wrong, arrogant, childish, churlish and should not have been said prior to him having to front the IJ. Not sporting at all!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets play a new game. Not what should happen, but what will happen.

What will the jury decide? 

My guess, they will find fact there was no foul.

It’s the easiest thing for them to do.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

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

gee, okay then just because you said though...idiot.

Share this post


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

Lets play a new game. Not what should happen, but what will happen.

What will the jury decide? 

My guess, they will find fact there was no foul.

It’s the easiest thing for them to do.

No matter how open and shut the case is, juries are 50/50. Who the fuck knows what they'll decide.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dorade is climbing up the charts. Currently 2nd in Div 4 and 33rd overall. Ahead of all Div 3 on corrected. They are 200 miles DTF, and going over 8 knots, so there's a chance they'll avoid a parking lot at Tasman Is, and pick up a seabreeze to get up the Derwent. Best case scenario is they'll only pick up a couple more spots, no more.

Share this post


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

No matter how open and shut the case is, juries are 50/50. Who the fuck knows what they'll decide.

You pays your money and takes your chances.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Dorade is climbing up the charts. Currently 2nd in Div 4 and 33rd overall. Ahead of all Div 3 on corrected. They are 200 miles DTF, and going over 8 knots, so there's a chance they'll avoid a parking lot at Tasman Is, and pick up a seabreeze to get up the Derwent. Best case scenario is they'll only pick up a couple more spots, no more.

It'll be hard to catch Banque de Nouvelle Caledonia, but they've giving Mister Lucky a great run for both corrected and line honours. A 3600 w seasoned able crew, very well sailed Dorade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, nq66 said:

5 min to start of hearing.everyone ready for this

 

Is it live? Where is the coverage?  If this was in my Seppo land we would have convicted and incarcerated him 5 mins before the hearing! You outbackers are sooo slow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites