• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
dachopper

Sydney to Hobart 2017

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, mad said:

I was referring to the sailors part of your comment, many here seemed unable to grasp the bare basics of the rules. 

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I must commend the jury.  
The verdict is correct and crystal clear. 
And everyone with even very little knowledge of the rules but some common sense must come to the same conclusion.
And the verdict makes it clear enough that the actual punishment would have been a disqualification. In an act of mercy (and probably in honor of the sailing performance) the penalty was reduced to one hour. 

No - the penalty available to the jury was a minimum of 5 minutes (see the SI's) and at the other extreme DSQ.

Aside from ensuring WOXI was placed behind Comanche on elapsed and corrected time quite how the jury arrived at 1 hour is open to conjecture.

Share this post


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

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

 

Well said! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I was referring to the sailors part of your comment, many here seemed unable to grasp the bare basics of the rules. 

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

 

They knew the same thing as everyone else knew, just that they thought they were above the law.  Richo thought he was the S2H.

Share this post


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

You are forgetting that Comanche had some kind of gear failure half way down the coast of Tassie. Their speed fell to 17 knots and they started sailing east for about 30 minutes. That would have cost around 10 miles.

Thanks Sav, I had missed that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

....That all aside if Cooney doesn't continue his protest, or does so but fails, and the decision by the CYCA appointed IJ is not a transparent deliberatation and conclusion for all to see, then this will happen

Before the last boat docks as permitted by all of the black letter stuff a protest under Rule 69 will be lodged identifying the CYCA and it's appointed IJ for the S2H for bringing the sport into disrepute. That protest will be of substance and bring into play various other legal considerations under Australian law. For instance Mr Sandy Oatley if you are reading these meanderings from, in your mind an internet fool. Can I suggest every dollar you outlay from today to support the above parties would not be a good idea.

Motivation for this course of action you may ask? 

The answer is simple. I and some like minded souls could not give two hoots about the race outcome, but have spent our lives educating and encouraging our kids regarding the protocols of sport and it's rules.

Be fucked if we are going to see some rich guy and his lacky put our collective investment on the rocks. That investment in our own kids, their friends and those they don't even know outweighs the Oatley family's investment in another 24hr headline for their boat by a country mile.

So with the smoke starting to clear I thought it appropriate to reveal our feelings with regard to the above Rule 69 hand grenade we were willing to pull the pin on pending a IJ outcome. That outcome is to hand now with WOXI being stripped of its title.

This was a Plan B in the event the IJ didn't rule accordingly commensurate with the protest and in a open and transparent manner. Further to the above we decided to capture more reciepants of a 3rd party Rule 69 Protest. World Sailing by their own amendments widened our standing, so we took advantage of it to include every party including Australian Sailing, the CYCA, the Jury and Team WOXI itself. The latter made us nervous but not enough to leave them out. On account of tomorrow being the last working day before the last boat finished and being time barred, drafts of all documents were complete. That was a big undertaking alone.

The actual outcome now renders our Plan B to history, but our feelings aren't what you think. Our first reaction was not one of euphoria with the IJ ruling, but one of feeling great sadness for the WOXI team and their individuals. Their investment and commitment over years to the sport with results many just pray for, including this race (maybe their last) where they had the fastest boat on the course have, by their own hand been now blown up. I for one was very impressed WOXI used an ability to drive at times up 10 degrees deeper than Comanche and that covered for things like sail damage etc.

So all we are left now is to dwell upon our motivation for being ready to drop a Rule 69 grenade on world sailing and what may transpire after pulling the pin. To be frank we were scared knowing after pulling the pin, we appreciated we had no control over anything after doing that.

That aside we know our motivation for being willing to drop a grenade is intact and now strengthened by the IJ's ruling I think.

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.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You kid loses a protest and kicks the bin over outside the Room, he would go for a row everyday of the week these days.

Saying you don't think much of the jury decision on national television is not very different!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes 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.

 

No just like the (thread drift) Doctor Clogs issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 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.

This is an asinine statement. You can try all you want to defend WO. They were reckless, made a clear mistake, walked on their opportunity to exonerate themselves and, worst of all, maintained their innocence after the race when any fair minded person clearly could determine they fouled C.

Our sport will never be understood by the mainstream. We have to do what's right for the sailors. The protest's outcome has rescued a legitimate result from the jaws of WO's pyrrhic  victory.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be surprised and disappointed if MR continued to lead the WO team, if it does continue.

Share this post


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

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

And WO is forever the hole in the lower back and got shown the middle finger.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chuso007 said:

Hey @jack_sparrow, didn't I read something yesterday about somebody wearing rabbit ears somewhere if ruling went like it did?

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. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 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. 

Is your issue with the facts found or application of the rules?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Nothing to do with mercy. It was in the sailing instructions that there be a time penalty of 5 minutes minimum.

But  maximum was a DSQ so there was some mercy shown don't you think?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the jury where wrong to go on about safety, so the interview records.

A test cricketer would lose their match fee for that criticism of an umpire!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 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. 

So you are saying that the findings are wrong?

You have a different interpretation of the Rules than the IJ?   Please share it with us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No but some balance and understanding required - let him (MR) go away and think about it. His loss if the penny doesn't drop.

Share this post


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

Is your issue with the facts found or application of the rules?

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.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just my opinion.

WO should of done the turns in that suituation even if they felt they did not infringe. You can go into a protest room  100% in the right but it's who can tell the best story wins. 

C was ment to be the much superior yacht in those conditions . 

C got beat to Hobart because they were out sailed by WO.

C now wins because of  WO arrogance. 

Like I said just my opinion. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 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. 

Round about way to admit all you say comes out of your arse.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

9 minutes ago, Apparent Lee said:

I see you have Random on your case AL. My condolences.

I have him on ignore but from time to time his original posts still pop up, to remind me why he is on ignore.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's been fantastic for the Oatleys & sounds like they had planned to sell out anyway. So might have been his last ride. If he was inclined to sail with another team I'm sure he'd get snapped up. If not me might be your channel 7 correspondent & be happy with his record as most successful Sydney to Hobart skipper ever & his farm & his "about 25" rolex's. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes 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.

Ha-ha

So your issue is with the facts found.

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

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Round about way to admit all you say comes out of your arse.

Nope next time you fuck up a gybe when I'm calling it ... it will not come out my arse, I will tell you how to do it properly.. but PS see prevoius posts re does a boat clear ahead have rights? or not discuss... 

 

Share this post


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

But  maximum was a DSQ so there was some mercy shown don't you think?

Shang already posted my views on the RO's rule amendments that the IJ must follow...but my guess maybe infringement 30' and in the absence of ability to DSQ another 30' for not doing a 720. Who knows.

Share this post


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

Nope next time you fuck up a gybe when I'm calling it ... it will not come out my arse,

Odds of you ending up on a boat I'm on are zero..peddle your crap elsewhere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ha-ha

So your issue is with the facts found.

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

Well you know there are three sides to every story ... but the Jury  decides how it ends...

Share this post


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

He's been fantastic for the Oatleys & sounds like they had planned to sell out anyway. So might have been his last ride. If he was inclined to sail with another team I'm sure he'd get snapped up. If not me might be your channel 7 correspondent & be happy with his record as most successful Sydney to Hobart skipper ever & his farm & his "about 25" rolex's. 

Scan does this all mean you will be pulling down the monster poster of Richo on the ceiling above your bed?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Odds of you ending up on a boat I'm on are zero..peddle your crap elsewhere.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you gather I think the jury got it right however it would be interesting to see overlaid, the boats GPS and other performance data plotted on a chart.

I guess they all have the GPS set up such that the lat/longs refer to the stem or outer end of the bowsprit.

From the presser it would seem Stan Honey presented this data but I'm not sure about WOXI.

PS - Why forget 15 - Acquiring Right Of Way?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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
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
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
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