dachopper

Sydney to Hobart 2017

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

I would quite happily go into the room in from of this lot, especially John Rountree as I know his knowledge, experience and, most importantly, fairness based on the evidence presented is beyond reproach.

Someone is going to be unhappy but such is life.

SS

good post.  there is a lot of bs being posted which seems to depend on who people would like to see win.  it shouldnt matter who is involved; a fair and impartial decision based on fact and logic is all that is required in this situation.  keen to hear the result and the reasoning...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more you watch the video, the more it seems Jimmy did a "Hollywood" job and tried to milk the penalty by making it look worse than it actually was. Oats clearly completed her tack leaving Comanche clear astern (briefly) but clear astern. Jimmy should've realized long before the Oats tack, that he did not have enough starboard to get at Oats and dipped them. If Oats had not tacked they would've crossed easily clear ahead of Comanche, and Jimmy would've been forced to dip anyway. 

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

I disagree. In this pic, WOXI is almost head to wind (where they are beginning a tack), and Commanche has not yet altered course as you can see by their wake. 

 

image.png

Good call!

But, WO are still tacking at that point and C doesn't appear to have altered course.

You are probably right so it then depends on how many boatlengths apart they were at that stage.

No result posted yet

Share this post


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

Watch the video objectively. IMO Oats crosses Comanches line, Oats completes her tack, passes through head to wind, jib tacks through to starboard side. Both boats are then on starboard. Most importantly, at that stage, once both boats are on starboard, Comanche is close, but has not established an overlap. She is clear astern of Oats. It was a close call, but Comanche does not clearly establish an overlap until well after Oats has completed her tack. Boat clear astern must keep clear.

Section A 
RIGHT OF WAY
 
A boat has right of way over another boat when the other boat is required to keep clear of her.  However, some rules in Sections B, C and D limit the actions of a right-of-way boat.
10
ON OPPOSITE TACKS
 
When are on opposite tacks, a port-tack boat shall keep clear of a starboard-tack boat.
11
ON THE SAME TACK, OVERLAPPED
 
When boats are on the same tack and overlapped, a windward boat shall keep clear of a leeward boat.
12
ON THE SAME TACK, NOT OVERLAPPED
 
When boats are on the same tack and not overlapped, a boat clear astern shall keep clear of a boat clear ahead.
13
WHILE TACKING
 
After a boat passes head to wind, she shall keep clear of other boats until she is on a close-hauled course.  During that time rules 10, 11 and 12 do not apply. If two boats are subject to this rule at the same time, the one on the other's port side or the one astern shall keep clear.

Respectfully disagree.  WO was not on her close-hauled course when C had to turn up to avoid.  WO's jib was trimmed in and it was still luffing and WO was still turning down to close-hauled course.  WO was still tacking and therefore burdened.  Clear Rule 13.

In any case, it was a ridiculous thing for WO to try to pull off.  15 minutes into a 600 mile race is not the time to go match racing.  In the view from WO you could see that land was NOT coming out if front of C's jib.  Richards was clearly tracking it and went into denial.  WO was not crossing and the driver let hope best reality and good strategy.

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waiting, waiting, waiting. 

Perhaps if I go to the bottle shop ?

Share this post


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

No mention of overtaking boat.....

What has overtaking boat got to do with it? Which rule would that be?

Share this post


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

Watch the video objectively. IMO Oats crosses Comanches line, Oats completes her tack, passes through head to wind, jib tacks through to starboard side. Both boats are then on starboard. Most importantly, at that stage, once both boats are on starboard, Comanche is close, but has not established an overlap. She is clear astern of Oats. It was a close call, but Comanche does not clearly establish an overlap until well after Oats has completed her tack. Boat clear astern must keep clear.

Section A 
RIGHT OF WAY
 
A boat has right of way over another boat when the other boat is required to keep clear of her.  However, some rules in Sections B, C and D limit the actions of a right-of-way boat.
10
ON OPPOSITE TACKS
 
When are on opposite tacks, a port-tack boat shall keep clear of a starboard-tack boat.
11
ON THE SAME TACK, OVERLAPPED
 
When boats are on the same tack and overlapped, a windward boat shall keep clear of a leeward boat.
12
ON THE SAME TACK, NOT OVERLAPPED
 
When boats are on the same tack and not overlapped, a boat clear astern shall keep clear of a boat clear ahead.
13
WHILE TACKING
 
After a boat passes head to wind, she shall keep clear of other boats until she is on a close-hauled course.  During that time rules 10, 11 and 12 do not apply. If two boats are subject to this rule at the same time, the one on the other's port side or the one astern shall keep clear.

My post yesterday - to be clear This protest  is a storm in a tea cup, Oats had completed their tack before Pit Bull was overlapped, .. International Jury will dismiss this... as fluff or I will wear rabbit ears to the CYCA prize giving, as promised to SCANAS...

Share this post


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

The more you watch the video, the more it seems Jimmy did a "Hollywood" job and tried to milk the penalty by making it look worse than it actually was. Oats clearly completed her tack leaving Comanche clear astern (briefly) but clear astern. Jimmy should've realized long before the Oats tack, that he did not have enough starboard to get at Oats and dipped them. If Oats had not tacked they would've crossed easily clear ahead of Comanche, and Jimmy would've been forced to dip anyway. 

its borderline that they completed their tack or not but regardless Comanche had to avoid the collision.

you're right in saying that oats should have crossed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Good call!

But, WO are still tacking at that point and C doesn't appear to have altered course.

You are probably right so it then depends on how many boatlengths apart they were at that stage.

No result posted yet

WO is NOT tacking in that picture.  She is still luffing.  Tacking is the turn between head to wind and on her close-hauled course.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The juries decision on the incident (the failure to do a 720 if there was an infringement is a seperate matter) will simply be at the time Comanche had to avoid riding up over the stern of WOXI, (by turning to weather to both avoid and scrub off speed), had WOXI completed her tack and therefore clear ahead and enjoying rights? Yes or No.

The evidence sought by the Jury, if not presented will include I suspect all data off the two boats to accurately determine their relative positions, tracks, data etc in time.

It is worth noting Stan Honeys expertise in this data arena is second to none in the world.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Respectfully disagree.  WO was not on her close-hauled course when C had to turn up to avoid.  WO's jib was trimmed in and it was still luffing and WO was still turning down to close-hauled course.  WO was still tacking and therefore burdened.  Clear Rule 13.

In any case, it was a ridiculous thing for WO to try to pull off.  15 minutes into a 600 mile race is not the time to go match racing.  In the view from WO you could see that land was NOT coming out if front of C's jib.  Richards was clearly tracking it and went into denial.  WO was not crossing and the driver let hope best reality and good strategy.

 

 

 

If its rule 13, doesn't that mean 10, 11 and 12 don't apply? The only rule that applies is 13, meaning the boat clear astern (Comanche) must keep clear.

Share this post


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

Good call!

But, WO are still tacking at that point and C doesn't appear to have altered course.

You are probably right so it then depends on how many boatlengths apart they were at that stage.

No result posted yet

No. Until they are head to wind they are lugging up on port tack. Once they pass head to wind until they are on a close-hauled course  on starboard they are tacking. At the pic above, they are a split second from beginning to tack.  C bbegins to luff up to avoid collision before WO is close-hauled...iow while they are still tacking. 

Share this post


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

WO is NOT tacking in that picture.  She is still luffing.  Tacking is the turn between head to wind and on her close-hauled course.  

You are 100% correct.

Luffing on Port tack until HTW then tacking to a closehauled stbd course.

Burdened boat at every turn.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct.  10, 11 and 12 do not apply.    However, read Rule 13.  It applies in spades and screws WO. 

The boat that is tacking (turning down from head to wind to close-hauled)  must keep clear of the starboard tack boat.  And complete her tack (assuming her normal close-hauled course) with room to allow the starboard tack boat to sail her course without taking immediate action to avoid her.

 

Share this post


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

WO is NOT tacking in that picture.  She is still luffing.  Tacking is the turn between head to wind and on her close-hauled course.  

Look at the difference in courses of the two boats. Maxi points about 35 deg TWA upwind? That's about their angle. In the process of turning the apparent wind in jib shifts aft a bit, that's why it's still full. They are a split second from transitioning from a luff to a tack.

Share this post


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

its borderline that they completed their tack or not but regardless Comanche had to avoid the collision.

you're right in saying that oats should have crossed. 

Sugarscoop you are correct Pit Bull was required to avoid contact as he was obliged under rule 12.

Share this post


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

Correct.  10, 11 and 12 do not apply.    However, read Rule 13.  It applies in spades and screws WO. 

The boat that is tacking (turning down from head to wind to close-hauled)  must keep clear of the starboard tack boat.  And complete her tack (assuming her normal close-hauled course) with room to allow the starboard tack boat to sail her course without taking immediate action to avoid her.

 

Agree with this. Had Comanche held course (was Spithill driving?) until WO completed their tack, and THEN attempted to keep clear there is a good likelyhood of a collision, with damage possible. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sugarscoop you are correct Pit Bull was required to avoid contact as he was obliged under rule 12.

Correct. Once WO completed their tack Comanche had to keep clear under 12. However, they had to begin altering course to avoid a collision before WO completed their tack. Therefore, rule 13 applies. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Look at the difference in courses of the two boats. Maxi points about 35 deg TWA upwind? That's about their angle. In the process of turning the apparent wind in jib shifts aft a bit, that's why it's still full. They are a split second from transitioning from a luff to a tack.

I agree, they are very close to head to wind - just not quite there yet - but that's also not the critical point in all of this rumble.  

In that lump, I'd suspect they sail a little fatter than 35° TWA.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The longer it takes for the hearing and then a determination, in my opinion does not auger well for someone who believes there was clearly no infringement thus a 720 was not necessary. For those who are grammatically challenged...Richo is fucked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Looks like a protest to me.

hopefully CO withdraws. 

WO outsailed them on the course 

Where have you been for the last 24 hours???

Share this post


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

Looks like a protest to me.

hopefully CO withdraws. 

WO outsailed them on the course 

I suggest to succeed at trolling you cast your lure into a shallower pond, preferably one with a depth that matches your IQ.

Share this post


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

The longer it takes for the hearing and then a determination, in my opinion does not auger well for someone who believes there was clearly no infringement thus a 720 was not necessary. For those who are grammatically challenged...Richo is fucked.

Maybe Rico is edjumacating the international jury on the rules differences between the AC and Hobart Race. <sarcasm>

Share this post


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

Correct. Once WO completed their tack Comanche had to keep clear under 12. However, they had to begin altering course to avoid a collision before WO completed their tack. Therefore, rule 13 applies. 

IMO it only looks that way. There is a shot from the video on live sail die facebook page from above and behind showing the point when Oats completes her tack where there is a considerable gap between the boats. Jimmy then turns back down and closes the gap between the boats as if to try and hook Oats Americas Cup style. I don't think Comanche HAD to avoid, i think they made it look like they had to avoid in order to try and milk a penalty. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Correct. Once WO completed their tack Comanche had to keep clear under 12. However, they had to begin altering course to avoid a collision before WO completed their tack. Therefore, rule 13 applies. 

Agree but Pitt Bull's course leading into the incident was all over the place like a mad women's pee, up down, up down, up down, Protest commitees take a dim view of people who are taking the piss... he was in the old phrase book hunting, indeed the broadcast took a feed from him, something like "we will get a piece of him" hardly the words of a wilting (or shrinking) violet who has been innocently violated. 

Share this post


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

I don't think Comanche HAD to avoid, i think they made it look like they had to avoid in order to try and milk a penalty. 

You and Richo are probably the only ones on planet earth who subscribe to that fairytale.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

You and Richo are probably the only ones on planet earth who subscribe to that fairytale.

After today, I'm betting the IJ will have subscribed to it as well, and Jimmy would've come in second - again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Agree but Pitt Bull's course leading into the incident was all over the place like a mad women's pee, up down, up down, up down, Protest commitees take a dim view of people who are taking the piss... he was in the old phrase book hunting, indeed the broadcast took a feed from him, something like "we will get a piece of him" hardly the words of a wilting violet who has been innocently violated. 

Now that's just horseshit. 

Share this post


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

hardly the words of a wilting (or shrinking) violet who has been innocently violated. 

Some interesting rule concepts being aired here. Like penaltys are only incurred if the other side are shrinking violets. That must be a new one.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

You and Richo are probably the only ones on planet earth who subscribe to that fairytale.

In the mock protest online earlier today, 90% of the viewers thought Rico fouled Comanche.  Rico's knob-polishers are a very small minority of only the most gullible and willfully ignorant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 John Rountree IJ (NZL) (Chairman), Peter Scheuerl IJ (GER), Jamie Sutherland IJ (NZL), Jonathon Rees NJ (AUS), and Erica Kirby NJ (AUS).

...Did I hear correctly that Ian Murray is representing WOXI?      

..sure are a lot of Roo's and Kiwis on the Jury,, shouldn't matter I spose.  :mellow:

Share this post


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

In the mock protest online earlier today, 90% of the viewers thought Rico fouled Comanche.  Rico's knob-polishers are a very small minority of only the most gullible and willfully ignorant.

Mock protest = mock results or "Fake news"

Share this post


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

Now that's just horseshit. 

Which part horse, which part shit? View the minute to minute and 30 secs before Oats tacked ... Pit Bull was "hunting" or in the  modern nomenclature did not provide Oats with room and opportunity to keep clear... only my view.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do they light a fire and white smoke comes out the chimney when they've reached a decision? ^_^

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

did not provide Oats with room and opportunity to keep clear... only my view

And one you keep repeating ad neuseaum...you must like the sound of your own voice.

Share this post


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

Which part horse, which part shit? View the minute to minute and 30 secs before Oats tacked ... Pit Bull was "hunting" or in the  modern nomenclature did not provide Oats with room and opportunity to keep clear... only my view.

I can easily turn it around and say 90 seconds prior WO could have tacked to avoid Comanche. Or even not tack and be in the clear. Probably tacked on the worst possible position. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Which part horse, which part shit? View the minute to minute and 30 secs before Oats tacked ... Pit Bull was "hunting" or in the  modern nomenclature did not provide Oats with room and opportunity to keep clear... only my view.

Oats had plenty of room to keep clear. All they had to do was tack one boat length earlier. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a Class A cock move by Spithill in the context of a 600 mile ocean race. He DID go hunting - that much is clear from the wake of the boat and the clearly audible comments coming off that boat. This is not the AC - over in 30 minutes, or some shits'n'giggles match race in Elliott 7's with rubber dongers on the bow. There are close to 40 people on those boats and fuck knows... what?  30+ million dollars worth of boats? What fuck head goes looking for a 'love tap' in those circumstances, in shifty, shitty breeze in the washing machine that exists in between North and South Head in Sydney Harbour? Pretty much every skipper I've ever sailed with (and tactician), would have waived the bastards through and left it on the race course. Cooney should have over ruled the protest on the boat IMO and order the red flag rolled away. Beat the enemy on the water. 

Yes, there ARE fucking cattle stations on the line in terms of the money dropped on these campaigns, but Comanche ought to have let it go. It's a fucked up way to win a race if Oats gets DSQ'd. The boat will live to fight another day against the Oats - and Blackjack - and Infotrack - and Scally - and CQS (if she makes it back here) - and who knows? Maybe someone will try and make something of Leopard? Or even Rio? We should celebrate the fact that many of these 100ft boats are in Aussie hands - and in the same pond - and we have many more salivating contests to look forward to. 

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

Some interesting rule concepts being aired here. Like penaltys are only incurred if the other side are shrinking violets. That must be a new one.

Well choose your flower, but a Spitbull is not one of them... that was the point.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

forever the asterisk against Cooney's win. Sad. Hollow feeling. Enjoy it. Warm champagne you chaps. 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richards....from rooster to feather-duster.    

            Glad it went that way,, still want to know what the WOXI braintrust had in mind.    :mellow:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only WO had taken the precaution of a couple of spins - they still would have shat the race in. What a fucked up way to end a classic contest. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the Hobart specialist who thinks diff rules apply will learn from this and be better. 

Do the bloody turns. I've been saying to WO apologists to set aside Comanche but replace the boat with any other boat out there not running for line honors. It that move didn't bother you and you wouldn't do your turns even out of abundance of caution, you're a jackass. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ease the sheet said:

Absolutely nothing.

 

I was responding to an imaginary argument.

 

Caught me then ha ha! Just like the use of the word "opportunity" by some. I would love to see them find that in the RRS

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why the people who say "well it's the beginning of a 600 mile ocean race so you shouldn't protest"... or the like feel that the length of the race matters to the rules?

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

1 hour penalty. 

Comanche are the paper champs. 

Wow ... getting out the rabbit ears ... watch out for those at the CYCA Prize giving .... been in those protests done that a few times before with the opposite decision not in front of international jurists tho ... I am not that good.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I'm hitting the sack and avoiding the next 3 pages of butt-hurt boyz posts.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be interested to read the findings.... and will be bloody careful in the future ... had one of these recently and thought we were OK ... clearly not.

Share this post


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

What was the penalty on Spithill for deliberately hunting ?

Something ?  Anything ?  Yoohoo !

You were obviously watching a different video

Just now, MR PLOW 270 said:

We all know who is the faster boat though. 

The boat that crossed the line first

Remember Mr Elvstrom Mr Plow

 

2 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Alright, I'm hitting the sack and avoiding the next 3 pages of butt-hurt boyz posts.

Have to be quick RKoch they've started already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR PLOW 270 said:

We all know who is the faster boat though. 

The boat that crossed the line first

I'd have to say WOXI is quite a boat and they sailed well.             .....still want to know what the WOXI braintrust had in mind.   :rolleyes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I hope for Richo's sake, the WOXI brand and memory of his old boss, he is more circumspect with his utterances shortly at the Meet the Press, than the arrogant comments he made about the pending protest when stepping off the boat.

It was hard to find one more idiotic than this. (my emphasis)

“I think we were totally innocent at the incident at the start. It is not the America’s Cup, it is the Hobart. The rules are different. I am not concerned at all.”

A good lesson for anyone heading to the Jury Room...keep your bloody mouth shut.

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

What was the penalty on Spithill for deliberately hunting ?

Something ?  Anything ?  Yoohoo !

...you need to study up on that.   ;)

Share this post


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

I wonder why the people who say "well it's the beginning of a 600 mile ocean race so you shouldn't protest"... or the like feel that the length of the race matters to the rules?

If oats had of nailed the start, the incident wouldn't have occurred......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking News: Wild Oats XI penalised one hour because jury has found she did not keep clear of LDV Comanche at Sydney Heads and did not do a two-turn penalty as required by the rules. This hour penalty is longer than the 26 minutes that separated Wild Oats XI and LDV Comanche.

https://www.facebook.com/RolexSydneyHobart/?hc_ref=ARRQez0KVCULWkS_pk8uy047eglAcN-S3xHiMGMoPcsRnfXzwelkUmUHo7ik9rbnNjg&fref=nf

-MH

Share this post


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

...you need to study up on that.   ;)

But but but . .  . . . he HAD to be hunting . . . . . . .  the WOXI fanboys said so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It was a Class A cock move by Spithill in the context of a 600 mile ocean race. He DID go hunting - that much is clear from the wake of the boat and the clearly audible comments coming off that boat. This is not the AC - over in 30 minutes, or some shits'n'giggles match race in Elliott 7's with rubber dongers on the bow. There are close to 40 people on those boats and fuck knows... what?  30+ million dollars worth of boats? What fuck head goes looking for a 'love tap' in those circumstances, in shifty, shitty breeze in the washing machine that exists in between North and South Head in Sydney Harbour? Pretty much every skipper I've ever sailed with (and tactician), would have waived the bastards through and left it on the race course. Cooney should have over ruled the protest on the boat IMO and order the red flag rolled away. Beat the enemy on the water. 

Yes, there ARE fucking cattle stations on the line in terms of the money dropped on these campaigns, but Comanche ought to have let it go. It's a fucked up way to win a race if Oats gets DSQ'd. The boat will live to fight another day against the Oats - and Blackjack - and Infotrack - and Scally - and CQS (if she makes it back here) - and who knows? Maybe someone will try and make something of Leopard? Or even Rio? We should celebrate the fact that many of these 100ft boats are in Aussie hands - and in the same pond - and we have many more salivating contests to look forward to. 

 

image.jpeg

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Oats given 1 hr penalty, second fastest boat wins hollow victory.

Hardly hollow, they sailed within the rules, WOXI didn't. If WOXI had NOT been protested THEIR's would have been the hollow AND undeserved victory.

I really don't get the concept that winning by breaking the rules is cool and that winning by exercising your rights under the rules is not cool?

No wonder our sport is not booming.

SS

 

  • Like 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MR PLOW 270 said:

We all know who is the faster boat though. 

The boat that crossed the line first

Assuming they were not cheating some other way, alongside the flagrant disregarding of the rules? I mean, ya gotta wonder if they were happy to cheat in such a public way, what were they doing that couldn't be seen. Thats always the question in my mind when I observe those who feel like they are above the rules the rest of us abide by.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Oats given 1 hr penalty, second fastest boat wins hollow victory.

The boat who played by the rules won.  Not hollow at all.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well trt131 and others I'll bet you were on the Protest Committee of the YC I sailed with. There, rules knowledge was poor  and decisions based around personalities, blind prejudice and ignorance. So thankfully not all PC are made up of your ilk. Wail and moan all you like. Lesson is do your circles or keep well clear when on Port !

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If oats had of nailed the start, the incident wouldn't have occurred......

Very true,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m glad the rules have been upheld, haven’t sailed big boats for years but that was reckless. 

Still, I watched sailer girls coverage of the Derwent live, I know who won on the water. 

Mixed feelings. 

Bottom line is he should have done the 720. 

Tough titties. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations, LDV Comanche. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't say I'm particularly sad.. Listening to Ricko - talking about the jury's position on safety "or whatever they were going on about".. I feel for the rest of the team that didn't get a say in circles vs no circles..

Share this post


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

Assuming they were not cheating some other way, alongside the flagrant disregarding of the rules? I mean, ya gotta wonder if they were happy to cheat in such a public way, what were they doing that couldn't be seen. Thats always the question in my mind when I observe those who feel like they are above the rules the rest of us abide by.

I don’t think you understand

itnwas a mistake that was against the rules

they thought that they were fine and they were not

I don’t think that they did it to break the rules knowingly

I think there is a difference between breaking rules and cheating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richo's and Oatley interview on ABC 24. Accepted the outcome (can't be appealed so big deal). Sticking to the line they had it all under control and a matter of difference of opinion. 

The fools just don't get it.

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

Alright, I'm hitting the sack and avoiding the next 3 pages of butt-hurt boyz posts.

Post of the thread!

Golf clap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, richiec said:

forever the asterisk against Cooney's win. Sad. Hollow feeling. Enjoy it. Warm champagne you chaps. 

does Carl Lewis have an asterisk next to his name for the 1988 100m gold medal? rules are there for a reason.  i am impartial to WOXI/Comanche, and from this perspective this appears to be the right outcome.  WOXI should have known better; a couple of minutes doing a 720 could have saved a whole lot of grief....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR PLOW 270 said:

I don’t think you understand

itnwas a mistake that was against the rules

they thought that they were fine and they were not

I don’t think that they did it to break the rules knowingly

I think there is a difference between breaking rules and cheating

Error of judgement was all. A fuck-up. It happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites