dachopper

Sydney to Hobart 2017

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Sugarscoop said:

classic dial up match racing move. Oats tacked to late and stud boat had to avoid before oats came down to a close hauled course. Penalty Oats. 

 

A fair penalty would be the delta between the two boats at the next turning mark as they boat would have been back to full speed. 

That would in effect be no penalty at all. WOXI had the option of turns. If they elect not to do them then the penalty the jury hands down should have more teeth. Otherwise, no one would do turns because 5 minute penalty at finish would seldom cost a position.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, trt131 said:

Even if the tack was not complete it is still not a rule 10 incident.  It would be about a boat tacking having to keep clear (rule 13).  The point I am trying to make is that a lot of posters on this and other threads insist it is a normal port starboard rule incident when clearly it is not.  It shows their ignorance of the rules in action and they should not be making judgement on the incident based on their ignorance.

it was a p/s as oats wasn't crossing
it was also tacking boat infringement

Share this post


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

it was a p/s as oats wasn't crossing
it was also tacking boat infringement

Thats exactly the ignorance of the rules that I mean

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

That would in effect be no penalty at all. WOXI had the option of turns. If they elect not to do them then the penalty the jury hands down should have more teeth. Otherwise, no one would do turns because 5 minute penalty at finish would seldom cost a position.

the delta wouldn't equal 5 minutes and neither would doing two penalty turns. in any other race oats would be dsq for not doing turns. in this race I think the SI's are different and the penalty would be 5 minutes

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, trt131 said:

Thats exactly the ignorance of the rules that I mean

could argue that oats was still on port when Comanche started to avoid. You are only a tacking boat once you cross head to wind.

Share this post


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

could argue that oats was still on port when Comanche started to avoid. You are only a tacking boat once you cross head to wind.

You could argue that WO was on port 10 minutes earlier but that has no relevance.  When the incident occurred both boats were on starboard tack

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


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

the delta wouldn't equal 5 minutes and neither would doing two penalty turns. in any other race oats would be dsq for not doing turns. in this race I think the SI's are different and the penalty would be 5 minutes

 

No. The penalty spelled out in the SIs is at least 5 minutes. If the jury ruled that WO fouled C, then the penalty will certainly exceed 5 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, trt131 said:

You could argue that WO was on port 10 minutes earlier but that has no relevance.  When the incident occurred both boats were on starboard tack

No. Comanche began avoiding a collision while WO was still tacking.

Share this post


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

That would in effect be no penalty at all. WOXI had the option of turns. If they elect not to do them then the penalty the jury hands down should have more teeth. Otherwise, no one would do turns because 5 minute penalty at finish would seldom cost a position.

The SIs draw a clear distinction between infringements before the seamark (minimum 5 minutes penalty) and after the seamark (minimum 30% place penalty).  There must be a reason for that. I don't like it much, but the IJ might well conclude that the penalty should take account of that distinction. 

Share this post


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

No. Comanche began avoiding a collision while WO was still tacking.

Actually while WO was luffing. Port tack and luffing till past HTW.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full penalty section of SI's below.  So if Wild Oats XI is found to have infringed, then the boat could face a penalty between 5 minutes and 40% scoring penalty. 

 

20. ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES

(Amends RRS 44, 63.1 and 64)

  1. 20.1  BEFORE CLEARING TURNING MARKS Z/Y.

    1. (a)  For an infringement of Part 2 of the RRS that occurs after the Preparatory Signal and prior to the boat clearing the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y), the Two Turns Penalty under RRS 44.2 shall apply.

    2. (b)  A boat which is found after a protest hearing to have infringed a rule of Part 2 of the RRS after the Preparatory Signal and prior to the boat clearing the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y), shall receive a time penalty of not less than 5 minutes added to the boat’s elapsed time.

    3. (c)  A boat that is found to be on course side at it ́s starting signal and fails to return and start shall receive a scoring penalty of 30%.

    4. (d)  A boat that complies with SI 20.1(a) shall, in addition to completing the Declaration as required under SI 26, notify “JBW” when reporting its position at the first scheduled Radio Position Report (1905 hours on 26 December 2017).

  2. 20.2  AFTER CLEARING TURNING MARK Z/Y.

    1. (a)  After a boat has cleared the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y), the Scoring Penalties of RRS 44.3 shall apply for an infringement of Part 2 of the RRS or these SIs.

    2. (b)  A boat which is found after a protest hearing to have infringed Part 2 of the RRS after clearing the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y) shall receive as a minimum a scoring penalty of 30%.

    3. (c)  A boat which fails to meet the requirements of SI 26 (Declarations) shall receive a scoring penalty of 20% applied by the Race Committee without a hearing (Amends RRS 63.1).

  3. 20.3  Where a penalty is not specified the International Jury may at their discretion impose a scoring penalty up to 40% in lieu of disqualification.

  4. 20.4  The International Jury may, at its discretion, disqualify a boat that causes serious damage or injury to another boat or its crew or for an infringement of RRS 69.1.

  5. 20.5  All penalties, unless otherwise specified, shall be computed as a percentage of the number of entries to the nearest whole number (rounding .5 upwards) in each Handicap Category or Division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true.  The incident occurred as Wild Oats was tacking.  It appears that Comanche had to alter course and became overlapped during the WIld Oats tacking manouver.  Wild Oats will have to demonstrate that they had completed the turn prior to the overlap, that they did not put the nose down after the overlap occurred.  Anyway, to say that the overlap occurred while both boats were on the same tack is not a complete description of the facts.  

Parsing the facts like this is not always the best way to establish credibility.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, trt131 said:

I am glad you guys are not part of this Jury or even your local club protest panel as you cant see the wood for trees

Yet you are clearly the expert..........A drip under pressure.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, who is this trt131 guy? And why didn't Comanche have him on board? Stan and Jimmy sure could have used his superior knowledge.  This whole thing could have beem avoided.

Share this post


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

Actually while WO was luffing. Port tack and luffing till past HTW.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I just saw the above quoted comment credited to Mark Richards and just about fell off my chair laughing. "The rules are different"? So what sport did he think he was taking part in?

He clearly didn't get a copy of the RRS 2017-2020 for Christmas.

SS

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Yet you are clearly the expert..........A drip under pressure.

One of my favourite expressions Hitch. Trouble is there are so many of them in this world. They are 10 a penny in China.

Cheers

SS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

Full penalty section of SI's below.  So if Wild Oats XI is found to have infringed, then the boat could face a penalty between 5 minutes and 40% scoring penalty. 

 

20. ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES

(Amends RRS 44, 63.1 and 64)

  1. 20.1  BEFORE CLEARING TURNING MARKS Z/Y.

    1. (a)  For an infringement of Part 2 of the RRS that occurs after the Preparatory Signal and prior to the boat clearing the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y), the Two Turns Penalty under RRS 44.2 shall apply.

    2. (b)  A boat which is found after a protest hearing to have infringed a rule of Part 2 of the RRS after the Preparatory Signal and prior to the boat clearing the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y), shall receive a time penalty of not less than 5 minutes added to the boat’s elapsed time.

    3. (c)  A boat that is found to be on course side at it ́s starting signal and fails to return and start shall receive a scoring penalty of 30%.

    4. (d)  A boat that complies with SI 20.1(a) shall, in addition to completing the Declaration as required under SI 26, notify “JBW” when reporting its position at the first scheduled Radio Position Report (1905 hours on 26 December 2017).

  2. 20.2  AFTER CLEARING TURNING MARK Z/Y.

    1. (a)  After a boat has cleared the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y), the Scoring Penalties of RRS 44.3 shall apply for an infringement of Part 2 of the RRS or these SIs.

    2. (b)  A boat which is found after a protest hearing to have infringed Part 2 of the RRS after clearing the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y) shall receive as a minimum a scoring penalty of 30%.

    3. (c)  A boat which fails to meet the requirements of SI 26 (Declarations) shall receive a scoring penalty of 20% applied by the Race Committee without a hearing (Amends RRS 63.1).

  3. 20.3  Where a penalty is not specified the International Jury may at their discretion impose a scoring penalty up to 40% in lieu of disqualification.

  4. 20.4  The International Jury may, at its discretion, disqualify a boat that causes serious damage or injury to another boat or its crew or for an infringement of RRS 69.1.

  5. 20.5  All penalties, unless otherwise specified, shall be computed as a percentage of the number of entries to the nearest whole number (rounding .5 upwards) in each Handicap Category or Division.

In actual fact the penalty could be between 5% and DSQ. Note the use of the words "may at their discretion" in 3.20.3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather amazing that Rico can open his mouth and step on his dick at the same time. If he keeps it up in the hearing, it'll be over pretty quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This discussion is going around in circles and VERY boring. Just wait until the jury makes the decision and move on. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, trt131 said:

I am glad you guys are not part of this Jury or even your local club protest panel as you cant see the wood for trees

Ours truly included of course

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

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

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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trt131 said:

Even if the tack was not complete it is still not a rule 10 incident.  It would be about a boat tacking having to keep clear (rule 13).  The point I am trying to make is that a lot of posters on this and other threads insist it is a normal port starboard rule incident when clearly it is not.  It shows their ignorance of the rules in action and they should not be making judgement on the incident based on their ignorance.

It looks as if it potentially started as a 10 as early in the video C starts to dip so they perhaps had a 'reasonable apprehension' that they couldn't clear WOXI (see World Sailing Case 50)

SS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
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