dachopper

Sydney to Hobart 2017

Recommended Posts

8 hours 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.

I guess the rest of us don't know the rules that well...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Totes Jack I will wave goodbye as I sail outa sight...

Thanks for your weasel down vote on departure...hope you find a boat and a sailing instructer to enable your dream.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Hypotheticaly two kids will trundle their respective Optis down the ramp this weekend. One will be a Club shitter with maybe a socio/economically challenged family supporting their kid to follow his sailing dream. The other will have the newest gear, the kid will be wearing sunglasses that cost more than a African nations GDP and his boat lives at home in a humidifier container. His helicopter father BTW drives the RO insane when he is not overseas on a business trip with his secretary in tow.

After today's decision the disadvantaged kid simply looks at the TV news about the S2H and says Dad; "It doesn't matter how much money one has, how powerful they think they are, the rules are the rules aren't they?" Dad sipping on a beer simply says "Yep". 

Today's decision to strip WOXI advanced sailing far more than many think.

There's no way to put it better than this.

47 minutes ago, Apparent Lee said:

Yep see me at the CYCA Prize giving wearing rabbit ears cause you could not see that coming .... goes against  club jury findings where I have attended... new interpretation not feeling any negs... simply a new way to look at the rules. 

Forgive my English, but I've read it four times and I have no idea what you're saying.

36 minutes ago, Apparent Lee said:

If you are clear ahead on the same tack... 

What race are you talking about? Certainly not this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

“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.”

 

 

Well, some of you WOXI fanboys should read the above statement again. Perhaps twice. Maybe three times. Then if you think about it a slight bit, perhaps you may understand how a TEAM deciding to ignore probably the second most fundamental rule in sailing will cause some angst amongst those sailors who view the rules as a part of the sport to be observed.

 

The most regrettable part of this incident, apart from the blatant crap spouted by a few here who should reconsider their participation in a sport where rules exist, is that the mistake made was not redressed in the manner it should be. Two turns. FFS, it was simple.

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

Thanks for your weasel down vote on departure...hope you find a boat and a sailing instructer to enable your dream.

Fuck Jack you are funny, have you tried stand up? Or is your butt glued to your couch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, rogerfal said:

Although the jury did not refer to it don't forget RRS 15.

Yep. Absolutely agree. Even if they got through 12 and 13, 15 was going to be a problem. And for what it's worth, I thought the ABC commentator was appalling - saying it's a "gentleman's"  sport and based on mateship C shouldn't have protested. Sexist. And fawning all over WOXI's acceptance of the outcome. Appalling commentary and lack of regard for the rules. Any other race WOXI would have been DSQ. Arrogance by WOXI. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zzzzzzzzzzz 

This place has become like another channel 7 broadcast of the race...

There are now only 6 boats with a mathematical chance of beating Ichi Ban and unless they sail into a teleporter, they have no chance.

Congratulations to Matt Alan and crew.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, gondy5484@exemail.com.au said:

Yep. Absolutely agree. Even if they got through 12 and 13, 15 was going to be a problem. And for what it's worth, I thought the ABC commentator was appalling - saying it's a "gentleman's"  sport and based on mateship C shouldn't have protested. Sexist. And fawning all over WOXI's acceptance of the outcome. Appalling commentary and lack of regard for the rules. Any other race WOXI would have been DSQ. Arrogance by WOXI. 

Sorry to be a pedant but methinks you mean 10 not 12.

Cheers

No disrespect but it does seem to be in the nature of some commentators - not able to restrain their fanboy instincts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is it

Putting aside the protest shit many don't appreciate the sporty dead downwind conditions of this edition. I can't recall conditions like that, the last maybe when Kialoa a half century ago set the record.

Stan Honey's effort holding WOXI at bay in those square conditions and not up Comanches ally is probably the best bit of nav work I have ever seen.

Share this post


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

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

So you are not allowed to leebow tack? That would have been 1/4-1/2 boat length earlier. If you do a leebow tack and the boat on S turns to leeward while you have started the tack, then it is a 16.1 case.

Not that this has anything to do with the C vs. WO case.

Share this post


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

Fuck Jack you are funny, have you tried stand up? Or is your butt glued to your couch.

You keep coming back after saying goodbye....stop humping my slippers ..I can't recall the name of that syndrome you have...but I know it's unprounouncable.

Share this post


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

Sorry to be a pedant but methinks you mean 10 not 12.

 

Yep. Agree 10 absolutely. I guess I was trying to say that 12 wouldn' t have saved them if (even though plenty including the ABC commentator have argued their tack was complete) since 15 would still have applied and WOXI had to give C  room to keep clear. 

Personally I reckon they should revisit the time penalty - why not a DSQ? Makes it very clear to boats the consequence of breaking the rules. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not strict enough, CYCA should hire a navy destroyer to sink any yachts that dare make a mistake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... If they come within say 100m of any other boat. All agree? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copy Gondy.

Why not DSQ - I'm thinking the penalty is sufficient. WOXI failed in their objective (though demonstrated they still have a fast boat) and hopefully learned a lesson.

It's clear to all that had they accepted the 720 they would very probably still have achieved a line honours victory and record.

A team of their experience is well aware of what can happen in the room so more fool them irrespective of their version of the facts. I can't believe they are that naive.

MR is clearly smarting as demonstrated by the lack of humility post the hearing. Let him go away and stew on it. How old is he? There may be time yet.

Share this post


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

That penalty does not reflect the REAL time loss to Com.

It was a penalty to WO not redress to C! Penalties have mostly nothing to do with the gain the foul gave. Normal penalty would be DSQ or 30% scoring penalty. Getting only 1 hour penalty is much less than normal, but it was expected to be less than normal since SI gives a minimun of 5 minutes. Nowhere in the rules or in the SI it is said that penalty should relflect the time gained and even less the time lost by a competitor.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ozee Adventure said:

100 foot doing a 720 at their earliest convenience (and no one elses) would have been an awesome sight & would not of have taken 27 mins

I have seen CQS do 360 due to touching a start mark (under water with a foil). Not that awesome sight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jury has stepped on Wild Oats throat, how the Jury reason time (minutes) for a clearly avoidable contact (as demonstrated) is possibly in the realm of subjective ~ to calculate the time required to absolve (720 turn) for alleged infringement in given conditions applicable : in this case 60 minutes is clearly excessive. The official reasoning will be interesting. 

Share this post


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

I have seen CQS do 360 due to touching a start mark (under water with a foil). Not that awesome sight.

What year was that?

In my head a pirouette would have been an international sensation, especially from above.

Share this post


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

 

 

Well, some of you WOXI fanboys should read the above statement again. Perhaps twice. Maybe three times. Then if you think about it a slight bit, perhaps you may understand how a TEAM deciding to ignore probably the second most fundamental rule in sailing will cause some angst amongst those sailors who view the rules as a part of the sport to be observed.

 

The most regrettable part of this incident, apart from the blatant crap spouted by a few here who should reconsider their participation in a sport where rules exist, is that the mistake made was not redressed in the manner it should be. Two turns. FFS, it was simple.

Most people here don't get it but the rules ARE different, although I don't go near the cesspool that is the A.C. these rules that use multiple starting lines, and seperate rounding marks, have written into the S.I.'s, starting at S.I. 20, a set of rules pertaining to what happens between the prep signal and the 2 offshore rounding marks. They amend the following rules:(Amends RRS 44, 63.1 and 64).

 

Share this post


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

The Jury has stepped on Wild Oats throat, how the Jury reason time (minutes) for a clearly avoidable contact (as demonstrated) is possibly in the realm of subjective ~ to calculate the time required to absolve (720 turn) for alleged infringement in given conditions applicable : in this case 60 minutes is clearly excessive. The official reasoning will be interesting. 

So 5 sec OCS should be just 5 sec added to elapsed time?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The Jury has stepped on Wild Oats throat, how the Jury reason time (minutes) for a clearly avoidable contact (as demonstrated) is possibly in the realm of subjective ~ to calculate the time required to absolve (720 turn) for alleged infringement in given conditions applicable : in this case 60 minutes is clearly excessive. The official reasoning will be interesting. 

It's a PENALTY

Shouting intended.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesnt matter. wild Oats will be sold next year anyway. 

 

Hope she stays in Aus. And someone buys Leopard and brings it here. Maybe Croaky will buy oats. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

A team of their experience is well aware of what can happen in the room so more fool them irrespective of their version of the facts. I can't believe they are that naive.

Yep. Agree 100%. The (missed) news story is how the IJ's came up with the 1hr penalty. It would be interesting to understand the history to why the CYCA changed the  standard DSQ penalty to a time penalty of at least 5m.  

Share this post


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

Yep. Agree 100%. The (missed) news story is how the IJ's came up with the 1hr penalty. It would be interesting to understand the history to why the CYCA changed the  standard DSQ penalty to a time penalty of at least 5m.  

Because a huge amount of effort goes into just getting to the line. 

Share this post


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

So 5 sec OCS should be just 5 sec added to elapsed time?

 

5 seconds ~ Sure, start before the line gets crowded ! Go for at least 5 minutes like  Rolly Tasker did with Siska.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real winner of this race was the International Jury who upheld the rules, clearly stating on the world stage, that no one is beneath the rules.

Something sorely lacking in many parts of the world.

  • Like 11

Share this post


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

...They amend the following rules:(Amends RRS 44, 63.1 and 64).

 

None of those rules have a bearing on what a boat decides to do when a right-of-way boat is nearby. Lots of events modify the penalty requirements so that's nothing special and one certainly doesn't need to be a genius to read the SI's and understand that. The rules in Part II of the RRS (when boats meet) were not modified or different from any standard race. Yes, match racing has modifications for certain things in that section of the rule book. None of that was relevant to this situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is also why many moons ago the 720 was introduced - thereby giving a competitor the option to exonerate themselves providing they did not make a significant gain or cause damage. This guards against for instance, pushing in at a mark in very light winds then hosing off down tide leaving your carnage in your wake.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Maybe Croaky will buy oats. 

"Croaky don't need a boat"...that sort of rhymes with "Charlie don't surf"..anyway he has stopped boating and is now doing the bedroom rodeo thing (as demanded by his new young wife) where he unfortunately may turn his toes up...but somehow she has forgotton CPR? 

Even rich pricks need to read the warning labels.

 

Share this post


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

"Croaky don't need a boat"...that sort of rhymes with "Charlie don't surf"..anyway he has stopped boating and is now doing the bedroom rodeo thing (as demanded by his new young wife) where he unfortunately may turn his toes up...but somehow she has forgotton CPR? 

Even rich pricks need to read the warning labels.

 

Clark got the boat idea off Croaky. In return Croaky got the younger model idea off Clark. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Clark got the boat idea off Croaky. In return Croaky got the younger model idea off Clark. 

Those LDV's must be chick magnets then

Share this post


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

The real winner of this race was the International Jury who upheld the rules, clearly stating on the world stage, that no one is beneath the rules.

Something sorely lacking in many parts of the world.

 

6 minutes ago, southerncross said:

The real winner of this race was the International Jury who upheld the rules, clearly stating on the world stage, that no one is beneath the rules.

Something sorely lacking in many parts of the world.

What a load of "off the cuff rhetoric" ~ what rules were upheld "specifically" that came up with a "60 minute Penalty" in this Particular instance.

Sure the decision / tactics of WO may have been bad judgement (at the time) ~ and I have been in similar : 60 minutes as a penalty probably needs to be in an "Advance" format (rules) in the Super-Maxi class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I coached I tried to instill a thought process to help the kids determine when to do penalty turns, when to RAF and when to take it to the room.  Being an IT professional I laid out the process in absolute binary terms.

1) At the time of the incident you may have fouled someone, is there ANY question in your mind that you’re at fault?

Yes – do your turns

No – take it to the room

2) At any point between your chance to do turns and the hearing, is there now ANY question in your mind that you’re at fault?

Yes – take an RAF

No – take it to the room

3) The judgment from the hearing is final, accept the ruling and be gracious the judges taking the time to help the event.  Be polite with your competitor, don’t gloat if you win the hearing and don’t be upset if you lose.

 

In WO’s case I can accept that on the water they thought they were right and hadn’t committed a foul.  All of us had the benefit of instant replay from helicopters, they did not.  What I don’t accept, but understand is the stubborn ego it took to not take an RAF.  I guess where professionals and wealthy owners are involved this will happen. 

 I can only surmise that WO knew they were going to lose the hearing, but didn’t anticipate such a harsh penalty.  I agree with those who think a 1 hour penalty is harsh for the crime, but it’s hard for me to say what the amount should have been.   

I’m guessing that the judges issued such harsh punishment because they know how that the hearing was being followed around the world.  So that the next time super maxi’s meet on the race course the responsible parties are aware of the consequences. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

That was Commanche's conditions, not Oats. She did really well to keep the gap to what it was. 

mate your a nice bloke and all that, but if you truly believe that nonsense, you really need to take up golf.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, Captain Jack Sparrow said:

None of those rules have a bearing on what a boat decides to do when a right-of-way boat is nearby. Lots of events modify the penalty requirements so that's nothing special and one certainly doesn't need to be a genius to read the SI's and understand that. The rules in Part II of the RRS (when boats meet) were not modified or different from any standard race. Yes, match racing has modifications for certain things in that section of the rule book. None of that was relevant to this situation. 

S.I.'s :  20. ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES (Amends RRS 44, 63.1 and 64) 20.1 BEFORE CLEARING TURNING MARKS Z/Y. (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.

RRS: 44 PENALTIES AT THE TIME OF AN INCIDENT
44.1 Taking a Penalty
A boat may take a Two-Turns Penalty when she may have broken one or more rules of Part 2 in an incident while racing.

I agree, it does say the Two Turn Penalty SHALL apply, RRS 44.1 states that a boat MAY take a 2 turn penalty. As M.R. didn't believe that he fouled C, and don't forget he was closer to the incident than the helm / afterguard on C, then he apparently chose not to do the turns..

I hope you understand that SHALL & MAY have 2 seperate meanings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop Press. Did Croaky sail in the end?

They did a good job with the LDV marketing. All the media referred to it as LDV comanche & not just Comanche. Cooney was even a good sport & wore the LDV hat. Probably thinking I don't need this fuckig LDV hat! 

If you are sitting there thinking if I am trying to put LDV into this post a lot. I can assure you I'm not getting any benefit by saying LDV. LDV have not paid me for this post. 

Share this post


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

 

What a load of "off the cuff rhetoric" ~ what rules were upheld "specifically" that came up with a "60 minute Penalty" in this Particular instance.

Sure the decision / tactics of WO may have been bad judgement (at the time) ~ and I have been in similar : 60 minutes as a penalty probably needs to be in an "Advance" format (rules) in the Super-Maxi class.

Please explain what is wrong with 60 mins.

Share this post


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

Clark got the boat idea off Croaky. In return Croaky got the younger model idea off Clark. 

..and you need to lie down.

Share this post


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

mate your a nice bloke and all that, but if you truly believe that nonsense, you really need to take up golf.

 

They got beaten by WOXI in the two small upwind sections easily. C looked good upwind at start but as they moved into the slop C slipped back. Sure it was deeper than Ideal for Comanche, but that was about the best weather they could hope for in this race, hence a VO70 (reaching boat) beating LOYAL's amazing record. You might get more reaching another year, but it'll probably come with longer periods of heavy upwind & light upwind which would be ideal for WOXI. 

Share this post


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

The Jury has stepped on Wild Oats throat, how the Jury reason time (minutes) for a clearly avoidable contact (as demonstrated) is possibly in the realm of subjective ~ to calculate the time required to absolve (720 turn) for alleged infringement in given conditions applicable : in this case 60 minutes is clearly excessive. The official reasoning will be interesting. 

Mate I know you mean well.. but the next dick head who knows nothing about the rules of sailing and trys to link the time for doing a penalty turn with a penalty..I will pay someone to track you down and sodomise you...Scan that offer excludes you so park your arse.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, rogerfal said:
15 minutes ago, Red Forza said:

 

What a load of "off the cuff rhetoric" ~ what rules were upheld "specifically" that came up with a "60 minute Penalty" in this Particular instance.

Sure the decision / tactics of WO may have been bad judgement (at the time) ~ and I have been in similar : 60 minutes as a penalty probably needs to be in an "Advance" format (rules) in the Super-Maxi class.

Please explain what is wrong with 60 mins.

Slow coming back.

Are you still thinking about taking a 720?

Share this post


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

Rolex as a sponsor can't be happy about this outcome. The Sydney Hobart has gone from one of the toughest races in the world to a race which can be won on shore. Now you'll get all the top match racers in the world entering trying to milk penalties on each other at the start, cruising down the coast and contesting the outcome in the jury room at Hobart. And people wonder why sailing doesn't get the audience numbers anymore.

Sorry, what? Are you seriously saying that if you were in a similar situation and the boat you believed had infringed the rules, you wouldn't protest? The rules are there for a reason. We are a self-policing sport and when people fail to do turns they get taken to the room. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, here’s the bit I can’t understand. 

 

Its a 630 mile race and they were only 5 miles in to the race. I understand that the owners all have small dicks as these boats are penis extensions and it’s a pissing contest. 

 

When ever I’ve raced long races I’ve always been told don’t take risks at the start of a long race and stay clean and do your turns even if you are in the right if you think there is a chance of a protest. 

 

So what was the brains trust thinking on Oats ?

 

The only bonus Oats have got out of that move was Chanel 7 gets there money’s worth in sponsorship! What else did they gain ?

 

The best thing I’ve taken out of this race is I’ve been able to show my daughter to  sail fair and do your turns if you think you need too. It was also a great way to  show her the rules in action.

 

i wounded what bob would be thinking about the move ?

 

pulpit 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Scan if the ambulance can't find your house wave a torch or something. 

Some compassion please Jack.

Scanas is probably twitching around at his keyboard trying to reach his phone to switch the torch on right now.

Send us the lat/long, we'll forward it to the emergency services............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, The Main Man said:

Sorry, what? Are you seriously saying that if you were in a similar situation and the boat you believed had infringed the rules, you wouldn't protest? The rules are there for a reason. We are a self-policing sport and when people fail to do turns they get taken to the room. 

He wouldn't protest if he's racing the Oatley Estate and being given the opportunity to fluff the greatest 100ft Sydney Hobart specialist. 

Share this post


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

So now the next question.

So given the new definition for rule 69, is coming out of the Room and saying that "the jury had a job to do but we had a moral victory"  which is clearly not abiding the decision in a real sense worthy of the Rule 69 Inquiry.

 

Slapping a Rule 69 on top of the protest ruling would be appropriate “IF” the actions/utterances of the Losers were to credibly bring the sport into disrespect. That would require that reasonable people would agree with those views. To date, other than the fawning apologists that’s not seeming to happen, and the humiliation of being thrashed in the room for avoidable foul should be adequate  

As they seem to be rejected in the majority, with the outcome being flagged as example of the correct application of the RRS and protest protocol, it’s perhaps better to let it fade away.

Should a subsequent eruption of poor sportsmanship occur with the same players, then perhaps you drop a bigger hammer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooooo.  There's still a bunch of boats out there bArely moving...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2017 at 8:55 AM, NORBowGirl said:

I guess I've only experienced the calm ones ;) been racing a lot with a swedish team there and seen nasty behaviour where I and the other Norwegian said we'll kill them in the jury room - but our skipper said no, we won't delay the beer drinking with that. They just had a conversation with the other boat and agreed to be friends. Up here, it would cause years of hate.... :) 

unless they were on 5000/day from the owner. Oh, wait - there aren't any of those guys in Sweden or Norway ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So now the next question.

So given the new definition for rule 69, is coming out of the Room and saying that "the jury had a job to do but we had a moral victory"  which is clearly not abiding the decision in a real sense worthy of the Rule 69 Inquiry.

 

They are arrogant cunts who just got a serving of comeuppance served hot...and now having to grapple with the fact that meal wasn't gluten free.

My guess is they were gone from yachting before this race started so who cares about their post ruling demeanor, in terms of a 69er.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richo is the gift which just keeps giving in the denial department. (ABC News, my emphasis)

"It's not very often you smash a Sydney to Hobart record and get it taken away from you."

Not one word or even a inference from Team WOXI that they fucked up....  just the we have been robbed shit. Murray normally post race, can't be missed and chasing reporters. Now MIA and he is not a guy easy to hide. 

Total bunch of fucking wankers...who had a small window of opportunity post hearing to show some good grace and can't even muster that up.

Good riddance to you.

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

If every offence is a DSQ no one would bother to enter. 

I think if every penalty (in the room) were DSQ, boats, even the big sexy ones, would do their turns and get on with their race.

Compare this to track and field where one false start means instant DSQ. Now, it is a more pure test of speed. 

WO should not have put themselves in the position, there was no need to be reckless in a 600 mile race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we are on the subject of bringing the sport into disrepute . . we get this . . 

"Mate I know you mean well.. but the next dick head who knows nothing about the rules of sailing and trys to link the time for doing a penalty turn with a penalty..I will pay someone to track you down and sodomise you...Scan that offer excludes you so park your arse." 

Some Ozzie manners you have there - bringing your country into disrepute.  (pretty sure Ozzie, right?) 

It's so easy when one is anonymous. 

What a punk.

Share this post


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

They got beaten by WOXI in the two small upwind sections easily. C looked good upwind at start but as they moved into the slop C slipped back. Sure it was deeper than Ideal for Comanche, but that was about the best weather they could hope for in this race, hence a VO70 (reaching boat) beating LOYAL's amazing record. You might get more reaching another year, but it'll probably come with longer periods of heavy upwind & light upwind which would be ideal for WOXI. 

Comanche did just fine in heavy upwind at the start of the 2014 race once they were out of the heads. Lead Oats for almost a day before they slinked past in a transition zone. 

I'm somewhat impressed that Comanche held of Oats in the VMG running down the Tazzie coast. Not at all Comanche's design brief. 

For all of you complaining saying that "Comanche is a one trick pony" "Comanche isn't an all rounder" blah blah blah THATS THE POINT. The boat was built to break records not be worlds fastest boat up-current in no breeze..

Would you rather have the fastest reaching, heavy upwind and heavy downwind boat..or the fastest light air boat....I know what I would pick..

Share this post


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

Richo is the gift which just keeps giving in the denial department. (ABC News, my emphasis)

"It's not very often you smash a Sydney to Hobart record and get it taken away from you."

Not one word or even a inference from Team WOXI that they fucked up....  just the we have been robbed shit. Murray normally post race, can't be missed and chasing reporters. Now MIA and he is not a guy easy to hide. 

Total bunch of fucking wankers...who had a small window of opportunity post hearing to show some good grace and can't even muster that up.

Good riddance to you.

I suspect Murray probably hiding to avoid saying I reckoned we would need to do the circles but the skipper thought Hobart rules were diff. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This is it

Putting aside the protest shit many don't appreciate the sporty dead downwind conditions of this edition. I can't recall conditions like that, the last maybe when Kialoa a half century ago set the record.

Stan Honey's effort holding WOXI at bay in those square conditions and not up Comanches ally is probably the best bit of nav work I have ever seen.

Thank you Jack. This might as well be a virtual regatta. Really hard to follow abroud. Sounded exciting, maybe we can actually follow this next time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

While we are on the subject of bringing the sport into disrepute ....

Some Ozzie manners you have there - bringing your country into disrepute.  (pretty sure Ozzie, right?) 

It's so easy when one is anonymous. 

What a punk.

What is it that when I'm expressing an opinion in your mind, is it bringing the sport into disrepute or bringing a country into disrepute??? ..make your mind up. 

When you have that aspect settled in your head, just let me know the exact grounds underpinning your desire to prosecute that argument and I will respond accordingly, here and in the open.

Until you do that you are just an unwanted burp of no substance.

Share this post


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

When I coached I tried to instill a thought process to help the kids determine when to do penalty turns, when to RAF and when to take it to the room.  Being an IT professional I laid out the process in absolute binary terms.

1) At the time of the incident you may have fouled someone, is there ANY question in your mind that you’re at fault?

Yes – do your turns

No – take it to the room

2) At any point between your chance to do turns and the hearing, is there now ANY question in your mind that you’re at fault?

Yes – take an RAF

No – take it to the room

3) The judgment from the hearing is final, accept the ruling and be gracious the judges taking the time to help the event.  Be polite with your competitor, don’t gloat if you win the hearing and don’t be upset if you lose.

 

In WO’s case I can accept that on the water they thought they were right and hadn’t committed a foul.  All of us had the benefit of instant replay from helicopters, they did not.  What I don’t accept, but understand is the stubborn ego it took to not take an RAF.  I guess where professionals and wealthy owners are involved this will happen. 

 I can only surmise that WO knew they were going to lose the hearing, but didn’t anticipate such a harsh penalty.  I agree with those who think a 1 hour penalty is harsh for the crime, but it’s hard for me to say what the amount should have been.   

I’m guessing that the judges issued such harsh punishment because they know how that the hearing was being followed around the world.  So that the next time super maxi’s meet on the race course the responsible parties are aware of the consequences. 

The jury handed down an appropriate penalty for what was a blatantly obvious breach of one of the most basic of all the right of way rules. WO's action risked causing a major collision. If you owned a sizeable boat capable of a fair turn of speed which races against other similar ones, maybe you could understand the seriousness of the transgression.

In the same post you have said both that "I can only surmise WO knew they would lose the hearing" and "I can accept on the water they thought they ... hadn't committed a foul." How do you square those two statements with yourself?

If WO's helmsman did not realise the boat had broken the rule he should not be helming; and why else would he know he was going to lose the hearing? Are you saying a helmsman can't be expected to know what he has done until he has seen a replay from a helicopter? Are you joking?

By saying the penalty is harsh you are yourself breaking your own rule number 3) because you are criticising the jury decision on the penalty by not recognising it as appropriate.

If you think the penalty was "harsh" maybe you should think again before doing any more coaching?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

If you are clear ahead on the same tack... you have rights ... what no longer? On telly  looked like C zigs and zags .... so to be fair we only had the dodgy camera angles while Stan Honey clearly presented  blow by blow stats... so where I thought Pit Bull changed course multi times 45 secs out... APPARENT LEE he did not ... see what I did there.... boohaha.

Still failing to grasp the basics we see. 

Had those ears fitted yet? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I see what you mean. I was confident Richards & Americas cup race director Iain Murray knew something I didn't. 

Their failure to grasp the basics along with an almighty ego?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the penalty is just about right. If you sailed an insanely good round-the-bouys regatta/series with a tough opponent close behind, and then you lost a protest in the room, you should expect to still place well but not win. WOXI moves into second on the penalty, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Totes Jack I will wave goodbye as I sail outa sight...

Here’s hoping. Have a good sail. 

Share this post


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

So you are not allowed to leebow tack? That would have been 1/4-1/2 boat length earlier. If you do a leebow tack and the boat on S turns to leeward while you have started the tack, then it is a 16.1 case.

Not that this has anything to do with the C vs. WO case.

That was in no way a lee bow tack!  If nothing else this race and thread has been very entertaining and has also identified that being on a race course with some here as possibly a very dangerous pastime. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What year was that?

In my head a pirouette would have been an international sensation, especially from above.

As far as I’m aware CQS has only been around really since the last S2H, since then has done the Fastnet, middle sea and a transatlantic race. So it would be interesting to see them throw a quick spin, especially with those wings etc. 

Share this post


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

The jury handed down an appropriate penalty for what was a blatantly obvious breach of one of the most basic of all the right of way rules. WO's action risked causing a major collision. If you owned a sizeable boat capable of a fair turn of speed which races against other similar ones, maybe you could understand the seriousness of the transgression.

In the same post you have said both that "I can only surmise WO knew they would lose the hearing" and "I can accept on the water they thought they ... hadn't committed a foul." How do you square those two statements with yourself?

If WO's helmsman did not realise the boat had broken the rule he should not be helming; and why else would he know he was going to lose the hearing? Are you saying a helmsman can't be expected to know what he has done until he has seen a replay from a helicopter? Are you joking?

By saying the penalty is harsh you are yourself breaking your own rule number 3) because you are criticising the jury decision on the penalty by not recognising it as appropriate.

If you think the penalty was "harsh" maybe you should think again before doing any more coaching?

To the first question it's simple, on the water WO thought they were in the right and off the water that changed were and were still willing to risk a penalty.  I'm not saying that's the right way to do things, only what might have been going on in their head.

Not joking.  Just trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but perhaps you're right these guys are pros.  What I was driving at with those comments was the evidence was overwelming, once on shore the right thing to do would have been to RAF.

What I would say about a penalty is that a punishment in the room should be more putative than doing circles for sure, maybe 2 to 3 times more punishing than taking a penalty on the water.   I'm not a super maxi expert, but a 60 minute penalty exceeds that.  A protest room punishment should exceed on the water punishment, but shouldn't seek to change the result.  If it so happens that a result gets changed by a punishment 2 to 3 times greater than so be it. 

I'm speaking to the harshness as a spectator, if I were dealt such a punishment as a coach or competitor I my opinions would be kept to myself... but then again using my logic I would have done a 720 or at worst taken an RAF (as would my students), but I digress.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty cool that Quest and Ichi Ban get to share the spoils IRC & ORCi.

:)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

As far as I’m aware CQS has only been around really since the last S2H, since then has done the Fastnet, middle sea and a transatlantic race. So it would be interesting to see them throw a quick spin, especially with those wings etc. 

Most of the other big boats, whether Rambler, CQS, Comanche have at least tried to do either the Fastnet or Middle Sea - perhaps a Pacific or Atlantic crossing or event. I think there's a Chinese proverb about the frog/toad in the well thinks the sky is that circular hole above him. Like I said earlier - if Wild Oats really wants to cement a legacy instead of just being a SH specialist, need to risk losing abroad.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care which one of these behemoths gets the official record, WO did an exceptional job imho and it was great to see two boats of the same length but completely design thinking display similar performance. Thing is they were both about 10% slower than the 60' tri Team Australia's record over almost the same course ( I think they started at the heads) There are now two ORMA 60's and a MOD 70 down under, now that would have been fun to watch were they allowed to enter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty damn funny now reading all the comments in the build up to the hearing result. Some very confident assertions have been proved...wanting.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

 

S.I.'s :  20. ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES (Amends RRS 44, 63.1 and 64) 20.1 BEFORE CLEARING TURNING MARKS Z/Y. (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.

RRS: 44 PENALTIES AT THE TIME OF AN INCIDENT
44.1 Taking a Penalty
A boat may take a Two-Turns Penalty when she may have broken one or more rules of Part 2 in an incident while racing.

I agree, it does say the Two Turn Penalty SHALL apply, RRS 44.1 states that a boat MAY take a 2 turn penalty. As M.R. didn't believe that he fouled C, and don't forget he was closer to the incident than the helm / afterguard on C, then he apparently chose not to do the turns..

I hope you understand that SHALL & MAY have 2 seperate meanings.

Absolutely. My point was that the rules that govern "When boats meet" in Part 2 of the RRS were not modified at all. 

 

Mark Richards saying that the rules were different was not a true statement regarding the incident between Wild Oats and Comanche on the water. Everything that governs on the water interactions (in parts 2 and 3 of RRS) was as stated in the RRS. Yes, the CYCA modified 44, and not even much.  44.1 and 44.2 apply from the prep signal until clearing the relevant seamark for the respective class. Then 44.3 takes over with a scoring penalty when the boats have cleared that mark.

Rules 63.1 and 64 are procedural rules that don't effect on the water interactions as they happen. It's for the race/protest committee to deal with after. Rule 44 (any/all of it) didn't affect the initial incident as it happened, and only became relevant after Comanche protested. And then I agree, that is up to the boat to take a penalty on the water, but if they feel they didn't than no worries. Except it cost them the race and the record and a lot of respect to not take the two-turns penalty at the time of the incident. Poor analysis of risk-reward in that afterguard. 

 

A hypothetical question to those with more knowledge about it than me...If Boat A protested Boat B and B did her turns but later was found to have not fouled by the committee would B be eligible for redress having done penalty turns?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, The Main Man said:

Pretty damn funny now reading all the comments in the build up to the hearing result. Some very confident assertions have been proved...wanting.

....a pretty shocking expose of knowledge of the RRS around here!     A real eye opener.    :o    :lol:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Captain Jack Sparrow said:

 

 

A hypothetical question to those with more knowledge about it than me...If Boat A protested Boat B and B did her turns but later was found to have not fouled by the committee would B be eligible for redress having done penalty turns?

 

No. Redress isn't given under those circumstances. Similar situation to seeing an individual recall flag up, returning to restart, and then finding out it wasn't you. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Captain Jack Sparrow said:

A hypothetical question to those with more knowledge about it than me...If Boat A protested Boat B and B did her turns but later was found to have not fouled by the committee would B be eligible for redress having done penalty turns?

 


No. It wouldn't even go to the jury - boat A's protest has been satisfied. Civilized conflict resolution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

No. Redress isn't given under those circumstances. Similar situation to seeing an individual recall flag up, returning to restart, and then finding out it wasn't you. 

Fair enough, thanks!

Share this post


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

....a pretty shocking expose of knowledge of the RRS around here!     A real eye opener.    :o    :lol:

Exactly my point, as well as bringing out quite a few trolls from ACA and other places as well. 

Share this post


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

Well, don't really agree with the jury, C shouldn't have altered down but the primary mistake was on W. If they were smart they'd have tacked earlier and to leeward, then chance of a foul is nil and in the lighter stuff probably could've pinched them off, dumb, over reaching, it happens.

Or crossed, clear ahead. They had time and room IMO.

Share this post


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

Or crossed, clear ahead. They had time and room IMO.

Yep. Even if they weren't - Comanche to my eye was prepared for the cross, might have protested but I don't think the jury would have ruled obstruction in that circumstance. The tack was what made it too dangerous.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, glexpress said:

To the first question it's simple, on the water WO thought they were in the right and off the water that changed were and were still willing to risk a penalty.  I'm not saying that's the right way to do things, only what might have been going on in their head.

Not joking.  Just trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but perhaps you're right these guys are pros.  What I was driving at with those comments was the evidence was overwelming, once on shore the right thing to do would have been to RAF.

What I would say about a penalty is that a punishment in the room should be more putative than doing circles for sure, maybe 2 to 3 times more punishing than taking a penalty on the water.   I'm not a super maxi expert, but a 60 minute penalty exceeds that.  A protest room punishment should exceed on the water punishment, but shouldn't seek to change the result.  If it so happens that a result gets changed by a punishment 2 to 3 times greater than so be it. 

I'm speaking to the harshness as a spectator, if I were dealt such a punishment as a coach or competitor I my opinions would be kept to myself... but then again using my logic I would have done a 720 or at worst taken an RAF (as would my students), but I digress.  

Stakes are different and with big boats you almost always take it to the room, even with my 45' the bucks spent are high enough not to just let it go.

At first the C vs. WOXI incident was clear to me as well, WOXI's foul. But now I'm not sure C was completely innocent either... Anyways great race going on and the battle for Line honours was a great show and WOXI showed her offshore potential which we all know Comanche already has.