• 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

2 minutes ago, Trevor B said:

Which is the argument for just doing the bloody turns......... idiots.

It was a FUFTEE FUFTEE call?

Its that Kiwi for Richo was a dick?

Share this post


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

It was a FUFTEE FUFTEE call?

That would be FEEFTEE FEEFTEE call is Australian, right? ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, familysailor said:

C didn't "alter down". Read the jury findings.

Looked like a bow down briefly to me on video regardless of the testified to track. You can put in a jink and the gps smoothing hides it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ~Stingray~ said:

Audio, at http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/sport/kiwi-sailor-matt-manson-rips-into-jimmy-spithill-and-comanche-after-sydney-hobart/

... Matt Mason is dumbfounded by the one hour penalty they've been given as they feel it would have taken them five minutes to serve the penalty on the water.

"We were tacked and completed and they were still 4-5 meters behind us."

lol

9 knots turns out to be 4.5 meters per second, so even somebody giving a rosy interpretation has the boats only a few seconds from a collision!

(I said a few instead 1 seconds as a fudge factor for the fact that oats was moving, but they certanily weren't up to full speed after the tack when comanche avoided them).

Share this post


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

Which is the argument for just doing the bloody turns......... idiots.

Seriously. Not like Comanche surprised them with a protest when they got to Hobart. That flag went up in Sydney immediately after. Don't blame Spithill for being desperate to win. Blame your afterguard for being stupid twice AND arrogant. Spithill had no way of knowing if Comanche or WOXI would finish first when he protested. And it didn't matter. Break the rules, do your turns. Doesn't matter if you finish first, last or in between. 

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, ~Stingray~ said:

Audio, at http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/sport/kiwi-sailor-matt-manson-rips-into-jimmy-spithill-and-comanche-after-sydney-hobart/

... Matt Mason is dumbfounded by the one hour penalty they've been given as they feel it would have taken them five minutes to serve the penalty on the water.

Matt Mason should really give up being a team spokesman. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Audio, at http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/sport/kiwi-sailor-matt-manson-rips-into-jimmy-spithill-and-comanche-after-sydney-hobart/

... Matt Mason is dumbfounded by the one hour penalty they've been given as they feel it would have taken them five minutes to serve the penalty on the water.

And because of the five minutes they might not have caught the same weather systems as C or the breeze up the river. We will never know how it would have played out since WO choose to ignore all input and continue the ego-trip. Even if they thought they were ok the red flag on C should have caused a rethinking.

Share this post


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

Seriously. Not like Comanche surprised them with a protest when they got to Hobart. That flag went up in Sydney immediately after. Don't blame Spithill for being desperate to win. Blame your afterguard for being stupid twice AND arrogant. Spithill had no way of knowing if Comanche or WOXI would finish first when he protested. And it didn't matter. Break the rules, do your turns. Doesn't matter if you finish first, last or in between. 

To Mason’s credit the ‘desperate’ line was said with humor; it’s at the very end of the audio. Just another Kiwi media, JS-jabbing ‘gotcha’ headline-grabber.

But... Agreed. Big screwup aboard W who should have tacked earlier or ducked instead - and JS deserves some credit for his helming prowess given the dumb move W did do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has taken me a whole bottle of Rioja to read through today's posts, so I've erased all the quotes I'd collected and I'm just going to wish you all a happy New Year... 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard a radio interview (which I can't find) with MR in which he said we had a view of the incident at the time that we were ok, having now seen the video well hmmm.  It was before the hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chuso007 said:

It has taken me a whole bottle of Rioja to read through today's posts, so I've erased all the quotes I'd collected and I'm just going to wish you all a happy New Year... 

:D

Cheers

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Matt, pay attention.  It is a penalty for not obeying the rules and then not exonerating yourselves.

The protest process is there to deal with fuckwits like these people who don't know how the rules work.

So MR

  • Did not believe he infringed (showing that he does not understand the rules)
  • OR
  • Deliberately refused to do a penalty (showing he flaunted the rules)

Not a good look either way is it?

Share this post


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

Also I don't buy Mark Richards claim that if the positions were reversed he wouldn't have protested Comanche. 

They might have protested on the water  but after being beaten by 27mins they wouldn't have lodged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ozmultis said:

FFS - he protested a boat for asking a pilot what colour sails were people flying a few years ago.  He would protest two flys on the wall

Thanks for the laugh!

During the TFE mock jury held yesterday, after which that guy’s posted prediction almost exactly nailed what the IJ did come down with, I posted a question to that ‘jury’ that got a bunch of laughter:

While Ricko was pulling off that move was he wearing boxers or briefs?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

FFS - he protested a boat for asking a pilot what colour sails were people flying a few years ago.  He would protest two flys on the wall

No he didn't. RC protested Loyal for Coxon asking if WOXI's sails were ok - Advantage Loyal!

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theaustralian.com.au/sport/tactician-plots-smarter-course-as-loyal-finally-gets-over-the-line/news-story/f5636fa9266d7353066ce82584436d6c

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

He is correct that the rules are different in the America's Cup for this port starboard upwind situation, hunting is allowed:

"Under the standard racing rules [RRS], if a porttack boat (P) is bearing away to pass astern (“duck”) a starboard tack boat (S), S is not allowed to bear away (“hunt”) P when the boats are close (rule 16.2). However, in the RRSAC, S is allowed to hunt P as long as she does not bear away farther than 90 degrees from the true wind (RRSAC 16.2)."

Comanche did not hunt as shown by indisputable nav data provided by Honey, so RRS 16.2  did not apply.  WOXI was penalized for breaking RRS 13.  Stating that RRS 16.2 & RRSAC 16.2 are different is a red herring.

I agree with the protest outcome.

1) You have misquoted RRS 16.2 - care to correct please.

2) Evidence for "indisputable" please. (All I got was it was presented to the jury at the hearing.)

Share this post


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

Audio, at http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/sport/kiwi-sailor-matt-manson-rips-into-jimmy-spithill-and-comanche-after-sydney-hobart/

... Matt Mason is dumbfounded by the one hour penalty they've been given as they feel it would have taken them five minutes to serve the penalty on the water.

They were stupid not to take the penalty on water. Off course the penalty after the fact is steeper. In ordinary cases they would have been dsq'd.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infotrack has just been penalized 20% of its time for not signing out correctly after finishing. There is apparently some kind of check out procedure and they didn't follow it. There isn't much point in having pros on board if they can't take care of that basic task for a new owner.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, By the lee said:

 

6 hours ago, rogerfal said:

Just a shame MR (and perhaps his afterguard) did not treat the whole episode with the same dignity that it deserved by at very least being big enough to say, "I fucked up".

He still can - anybody got a direct line to give him a prompt.

Quote

Wild Oats XI’s skipper, Mark Richards and Sandy Oatley representing the Oatley family, were gracious in defeat.

Richards said, “Obviously we’re very disappointed, but the international jury had a job to do. They saw the incident the way they saw it, we saw it a little bit differently, but the result is the result and we have to respect the decision of the jury.”

Sandy Oatley added: “We’d just like to congratulate Jim Cooney and his crew for their success, and move forward.”

 

 

Watch the video................. Oatley thank goodness stepped in. Go back to the source then step back in without cherry picking and misrepresenting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

there seem to be some who think the decision stated that RRS 10 and 13 were both broken

in fact the decision says only that RRS 13 (While Tacking) was broken - the video is clear.., S alters course before P is on a close hauled course on starboard tack.

It's fair to ask whether S needed to alter course.., but I think given the video.., it's reasonable for S to claim they did feel they needed to alter course. P was crazy to not realize that a jury would almost certainly agree with that.

another misconception i have seen in this thread is that some believe S can not alter course - in fact, the only limitation on S is that she can not alter course in such a way that P does not have room to keep clear. So.., to all the comments about S making small course alterations up or down - it's irrelevant.

To those who say that P should have withdrawn after seeing the video, and realizing they broke a rule.., i  think there is no sportsmanship or fair sailing issue here - when the SI's specify the possibility of an alternate penalty to be decided by the jury, it's perfectly okay to wait and see what that penalty is.

as far as the 1hr goes - anyone who thinks that the time penalty is supposed to reflect the time for a 720.., is just wrong. There is no guidance to this effect in the judges manual

However usually, this situation doesn't arise...

in my experience.., there are races where a boat can take either a 720.., or an alternate penalty which is usually specified in the SI's as a %.., and is not determined by the jury

then there are races (usually distance races) where the option to do a 720 is explicitly removed, and the only possible penalty is a time penalty to be determined by the jury. this is because it's generally felt that a 720 is an insufficient penalty for a distance race.., and also because it's generally felt that disqualification is too great a penalty (for most offenses) in a distance race.

so this race is unusual in having a period where both the 720 and an indeterminate time penalty are both possible

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Which makes WOXI's penalty a very light slap on the wrists

You can't go around chucking people out of races for shit like that. They only people who turn up would be lawyers. 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

Which is the argument for just doing the bloody turns......... idiots.

Absolutely.

How often to coaches say "don't leave it up to the umpire"? I.e. don't bet on winning 50/50 decisions, and Commanche vs WOXI was at the very best 50/50. 

If Richards wanted the moral high ground, he should have done the turns and then won anyway. That would have been the gracious, sportsman like thing to while greatly enhancing WOXI's reputation. It would have been Spithill who came out looking like a dick for whinging about a pretty minor infringement.

I guess it takes a special talent to turn that on its head and come out looking like an arrogant arse having cost the crew and owners a spectacular win and WOXI a special place in history as having beaten the fastest monohull on Earth twice.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

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

Really? I remember sailing when that was the ONLY penalty and fleets were just as big - yes, I am that old ha ha

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Perhaps read that over again before posting.  Oh the irony.

No irony detected. 

Understanding that a stereotype is just that, is possibly the first step towards not being a racist

Share this post


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

Really? I remember sailing when that was the ONLY penalty and fleets were just as big - yes, I am that old ha ha

Hey Marty McFly it's 2017 how's the doc?

People won't spend their hard earned & risk being flicked all the time. Penalty sure, DSQ for collision, blatant breech, fucking over another competitor on purpose, cheating, illegal mods, t-boning another boat so they can't do the race because they are only need to finish 4th to wrap up a series! Yes DSQ all of them. 

Loyal protest chucked out 

Ragamuffin OCS chucked out

WOXI being told by RC on satphone not to continue into bass strait without a Hf 

All protests chucked out because Jury deemed it didn't change result of the race. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, us7070 said:

there seem to be some who think the decision stated that RRS 10 and 13 were both broken

Because some ******* people can't be arsed to read for themselves............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours 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?

 

A good question Jack but my understanding of it is definitely not. The redress rule (62.1) has two very important phrases. 1. "Through no fault of her own" - no one forced her to do precautionary turns. 2. "made significantly worse" - should have to be able to prove that the 720 lost her significant places on the race course.

If she responds to a protest hail herself and does turns herself not a chance of redress.

SS

Share this post


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

Because some ******* people can't be arsed to read for themselves............

 

including whoever wrote the Front Page article (Clean? isn't he a lawyer?) where it is incorrectly described as a "blatant port/starboard foul"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the cap fits..........

However is that semantics? Question.

Ended up being a 13 but not very far either way to a 10 or 15.

Share this post


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

Really? I remember sailing when that was the ONLY penalty and fleets were just as big - yes, I am that old ha ha

When I started sailing, the penalty for touching a mark was dsq.

Share this post


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

 

That's the strange thing, W likely would have been close but clear,, maybe needed to do the opposite of what they did, a quick bearaway at the right moment.  In any case, they did about as bad as they possibly could!   Between the start and the incident, I really wonder what the FACK was going on with Richards and Murray.... feel like starting the...'yachting hall of shame' for things like this.    Their moves were as rational as Rimas, no more, no less! 

''If in doubt, do your turns''....not necessarily good enough.   :wacko:

In the case experience I mentioned,,, we were front row on the startline of a laser worlds in the 80's.  There was contact, but the other fellow didn't get his flag out for ~a minute,, I probably took 2 minutes before I could do circles.   The jury ruled both of us be thrown out, using their own verdict from the previous worlds as precedent!     Now S'handed boats aren't even required to show a frikken flag.   'First reasonable opportunity'  used to mean exactly that!  <_< 

You are completely right Couch but a lot of people took advantage of "first reasonable opportunity" which is why the rule now reads "After getting well clear of other boats as soon after the incident as possible" In other words you can no longer wait for a space - you have to get into a space. The onus is on the rule breaker to find the room to do turns not wait for room to appear.

Is it fair to the rule breaker? Well it is a PENALTY after all.

SS

Share this post


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

You can't go around chucking people out of races for shit like that. They only people who turn up would be lawyers. 

 

Your new to this aren't you..... it happens in every other race around the world.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Your new to this aren't you..... it happens in every other race around the world.

A. They didn't chuck them &

B. They made the amendments for cases like this. 

Share this post


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

Audio, at http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/sport/kiwi-sailor-matt-manson-rips-into-jimmy-spithill-and-comanche-after-sydney-hobart/

... Matt Mason is dumbfounded by the one hour penalty they've been given as they feel it would have taken them five minutes to serve the penalty on the water.

Well maybe they should have done the turns????

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You can't go around chucking people out of races for shit like that. They only people who turn up would be lawyers. 

That would have to be in the top ten of the stupidest posts in this thread. 

Read the RRS, it's clear that you have not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hawaii race a few years back. A boat had absolutely smashed their class and would have won first overall by some 12 hours. (40 footer finished in 7.5 days or something silly like that.) HOWEVER, "an inadvertent prohibited use of certain tracker data violated the race rules, and was assessed a time penalty of 24 hours. 

For those of you defending oats, what makes the Oats situation any different than this one in terms of the penalty assessed. 

The rules are the rules. Whether it's a 100 foot supermaxi on a hobart or a 40 footer in a pac cup. We have rules for a reason and the extraordinary circumstances of a particular race or run do not excuse a rule violation. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

It has taken me a whole bottle of Rioja to read through today's posts, so I've erased all the quotes I'd collected and I'm just going to wish you all a happy New Year... 

See you in 2018 Chus

SS

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Audio, at http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/sport/kiwi-sailor-matt-manson-rips-into-jimmy-spithill-and-comanche-after-sydney-hobart/

... Matt Mason is dumbfounded by the one hour penalty they've been given as they feel it would have taken them five minutes to serve the penalty on the water.

While an idiot for saying that nonsence, it at least fills in some of the gaps behind Richard's thinking.

Richo stepping off in Hobart indicates they were 100% in the clear. This guy says that was based upon them completing their tack 4/5 metres clear of Comanche. So "100% in the clear" in Richo's mind is around 1 second from there being a collision. A collision that he set in train, didn't avoid and forced the other boat to avoid.

Based on that bizzare definition of "clear", he ignores the red hankerchief so making it "his sole decision" it will flutter all the way to Hobart and the incident going to the Jury Room with a potential "off water" penalty.

Then when they get to Hobart and see some video "100% in the clear" now becomes in their minds a "50/50" incident. So now they start bitching because Spithill won't withdraw and let them off the hook. In doing that they are also holding in contempt people like us watching on.

So coming out of a room that they elected to walk into, they then bitch the IJ's "off water" penalty  of 1 hour doesn't correspond to a "on water" penalty akin to the time taken to do a 720 or say 5  minutes, the minimum that a "off water" penalty can be. 

The extension of that is that back at Sydney Heads Richo deduced that penalty turns can be ignored because at worst all he had to do was beat Commanche by more than 5 minutes and he would be in the clear, and if he didn't, well he would accept defeat? He might also have deduced hitting the Derwent 5 minutes early might be of some greater advantage!!?

With that mindset being carried forward into the Jury Room there were probably Jury members fucking annoyed that they couldn't smack that arrogance with a DSQ.

 

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

Well maybe they should have done the turns????

 

And how far do you think they would have had to sail to get clear of all other boats, plus the spectator fleet and get it all done before they got to Z buoy when the alternative penalty option ran out? New Zealand?

It is crazy and dangerous to expect a supermaxi to be doing consecutive 720 turns in a situation like that. It is mayhem on the water at a Sydney Hobart start.  Comanche would have lost all of 20 secs from their luff - a 15 minute time penalty is reasonable.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, By the lee said:

Well go watch the video. It's on the front page, this thread and probably elsewhere. Simple really.

Share this post


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

And how far do you think they would have had to sail to get clear of all other boats, plus the spectator fleet and get it all done before they got to Z buoy when the alternative penalty option ran out? New Zealand?

It is crazy and dangerous to expect a supermaxi to be doing consecutive 720 turns in a situation like that. It is mayhem on the water at a Sydney Hobart start.  Comanche would have lost all of 20 secs from their luff - a 15 minute time penalty is reasonable.

Another fanboy..

Or to put it another way - don't infringe, you know the rules and if you don't like them stay away from the party.

Share this post


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

That would have to be in the top ten of the stupidest posts in this thread. 

Read the RRS, it's clear that you have not.

I am starting to wonder if we are talking to rail meat for beer can races..... may explain a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tornado & Random I've never said they didn't break rules or that the rules weren't applied properly. I agreed with the Penalty & said they got off lightly considering all possible results (for eg a DSQ) I said I support changes to not DSQ boats for what I consider minor incidents so that more owners race. 

Tornado I've had said numerous times I'm a club hack. 

Random I assume you'll be entering the 70th Gladstone & give us all a lesson. entries are open & it is is now easier at Cat3+ 

Share this post


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

Well go watch the video. It's on the front page, this thread and probably elsewhere. Simple really.

JFC  IT WAS THE RSHYR media     RELEASE CHERRY PICKED THEIR COMMENTS! 

NOT ME, I. DON'T. CARE. EH?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, robberzdog said:

And how far do you think they would have had to sail to get clear of all other boats, plus the spectator fleet and get it all done before they got to Z buoy when the alternative penalty option ran out? New Zealand?

It is crazy and dangerous to expect a supermaxi to be doing consecutive 720 turns in a situation like that. It is mayhem on the water at a Sydney Hobart start.  Comanche would have lost all of 20 secs from their luff - a 15 minute time penalty is reasonable.

There was no one near them on the water. Watch the video. 

Share this post


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

 

It is crazy and dangerous to expect a supermaxi to be doing consecutive 720 turns in a situation like that. It is mayhem on the water at a Sydney Hobart start.  Comanche would have lost all of 20 secs from their luff - a 15 minute time penalty is reasonable.

 

The owner of C reckons they were delayed 4-5 minutes by this incident

Quote

Mr Cooney said he thought the one-hour penalty given to Wild Oats XI was fair, even though it was hard to see the calculation behind it.

"The amount of time involved with taking an evasive manoeuvre like that isn't the issue. You probably saw from the footage that both boats recovered within a few minutes and set about safely sailing the rest of the race," he said.

"We were delayed by four minutes or five minutes while recovering and set about following our proper course.

"You could extend that and say had we arrived in the Derwent five minutes earlier than we did, we may not have had the same wind conditions.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-29/sydney-to-hobart-wild-oats-should-have-been-disqualified-expert/9291414

 

Share this post


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

Richo stepping off in Hobart indicates they were 100% in the clear. This guy says that was based upon them completing their tack 4/5 metres clear of Comanche. So "100% in the clear" in Richo's mind is around 1 second from there being a collision. A collision that he set in train, didn't avoid and forced the other boat to avoid.

 

and the only reason there was 4 or 5m (if there really was) between the boats when WO completed their tack..., was because C altered course a few seconds _before_ WO completed their tack - _that_ is the essence of the RRS 13 violation found by the jury.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Tornado_ALIVE said:

Tell me, what other race in the world does not DSQ a competitor after a protest for infringing and not completing their penalty.

I believe it's actually not uncommon for ocean races to have alternative penalties like this, rather than DSQ.  I haven't checked the Newport-Bermuda SI, but my recollection from the last time I did it (2012) was that it included something like that.

Think of it this way...  In a regatta where you sail 8 races, a DSQ in one race destroys that one race, but doesn't destroy your entire regatta.  An alternative penalty like this is comparable in that it hurts you tangibly more than doing the 720 you should have done to begin with, while also not destroying your entire experience.

I simply can't understand why WOXI didn't do a 720.  I think the incident was both an egregious foul and simply a mistake we've all made.  They thought they were crossing, and then decided too late that they weren't.  Embarrassing for sure, but get over it and do your 720.  If you don't want to do it with the whole world watching and spectator traffic, fine.  Do it half an hour later.  I doubt anyone would have an issue with a 100-footer arguing that it was unsafe to attempt a 720 in that traffic.

Just do the f'ing 720.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, By the lee said:

JFC  IT WAS THE RSHYR media     RELEASE CHERRY PICKED THEIR COMMENTS! 

NOT ME, I. DON'T. CARE. EH?

Then shut the fuck up and stop misrepresenting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Comanche are expected and obliged by the rules to ENFORCE them, e.g. protest

2. the gentlemanly option was for the infringing party to RETIRE after the incident.

RRS Basic Principles.

SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES

Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce.

A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Tornado_ALIVE said:

I am starting to wonder if we are talking to rail meat for beer can races..... may explain a lot.

I think you are correct.  Not everyone came to big boat sailing through small boat RRS.  Seen lot's of crew and owners who know fuck all about the rules.

I left one club because they hardly ever did RRS racing, just Colregs stuff on Wednesdays & Saturdays.  It got dangerous after a while.  Once I was on port approaching another boat on starboard, I had lined it up for a comfortable cross behind while not losing too much ground, when the S'board boat changed course towards me, we almost collided head-on.

Afterwards the S'board guy said that he altered course in his 42 footer because he did not think we were going to pass behind.  He had never raced competitively and was completely unused to crossings like that.   He hardly had a grasp of colregs either.  Anyway I had to find somewhere else to sail safely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would the consequence have been if in the post race declaration WOXI had declared the incident and admitted fault?  It seems that the decision on the penalty awarded would have gone to the RC, not the IJ. There seems to be an implicit idea that even here, an admission of guilt might attract a lesser penalty than a trip to the room.  However with a protest lodged, I am not sure that the resolution would or could have been. The SIs don't seem clear on this question.

But it does seem that there was still a last minute save if MR and company had decided that there was a real chance that they would lose the protest, which would be, even then, to admit guilt, and take an unknown penalty from the RC. IJs are renowned for a steely eyed view of the rules and their enforcement, but IMHO the chances of the RC having the cojones to deliver a penalty that overturned the LH result would be vastly less than the IJ.

Which isn't to say I don't support the decision.  I think the IJ got it exactly right.

Share this post


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

Random I assume you'll be entering the 70th Gladstone & give us all a lesson. entries are open & it is is now easier at Cat3+ 

Are you entering?  Have you noticed that they DSQ people sometimes.

edit: but maybe only lawyers enter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ModernViking said:

Maybe it's time to stop beating the dead horse?

nWXa8aI.gif

This needs to be repeated.....

Share this post


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

 

How are the Sydney 38's doing. Other then Mondo, I don't know which yachts are S38's and I can't be bothered looking through the start list especially when you are probably keeping an eye on them ;)

Share this post


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

Then shut the fuck up and stop misrepresenting.

 :lol:

You misrepresent what I post and then accuse me of misrepresentation. 

Try and follow along will you? It's really not that hard.

Ask your mom for help if you need to.

 

Share this post


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

And how far do you think they would have had to sail to get clear of all other boats, plus the spectator fleet and get it all done before they got to Z buoy when the alternative penalty option ran out? New Zealand?

It is crazy and dangerous to expect a supermaxi to be doing consecutive 720 turns in a situation like that. It is mayhem on the water at a Sydney Hobart start.  Comanche would have lost all of 20 secs from their luff - a 15 minute time penalty is reasonable.

Then perhaps they should have been more carefull with their tack. 

Plan B, if doing a 720 was 'dangerous' (lol!) would have been to radio acknowledgement of the foul and their reason for not doing 720.  The immediate admission of guilt likely would have resulted in a lesser penalty by IJ. 

Instead, they were arrogant from the foul to the protest room, and got smacked. Still got off easy b/c in normal circumstances the only penalty would be dsq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

n a regatta where you sail 8 races, a DSQ in one race destroys that one race, but doesn't destroy your entire regatta.  An alternative penalty like this is comparable in that it hurts you tangibly more than doing the 720 you should have done to begin with, while also not destroying your entire experience.

DSQ's cannot be dropped usually.  Someone I know went from 1st to 7th that way.  It still can ruin your weekend and State Title.

Share this post


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

How are the Sydney 38's doing. Other then Mondo, I don't know which yachts are S38's and I can't be bothered looking through the start list especially when you are probably keeping an eye on them ;)

TSA & Calibre. TSA winning no suprises there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, By the lee said:

 :lol:

You misrepresent what I post and then accuse me of misrepresentation. 

Try and follow along will you? It's really not that hard.

Ask your mom for help if you need to.

 

Lets make this simple.

What do you think about the Oatley and MR post protest comments?

Video on the front page.

Share this post


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

Are you entering?  Have you noticed that they they DSQ people sometimes.

I'll be there. I don't own a boat. 

So are you entering or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go TSA .....got a couple of mates on board....

Cheers,

Jim B)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'll be there. I don't own a boat. 

So are you entering or not?

Last couple of times on multi's.  Get to be club quicker than on mine.

Share this post


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

1. Comanche are expected and obliged by the rules to ENFORCE them, e.g. protest

2. the gentlemanly option was for the infringing party to RETIRE after the incident.

RRS Basic Principles.

SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES

Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce.

A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire.

He returns! Welcome GS!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, us7070 said:

 

and the only reason there was 4 or 5m (if there really was) between the boats when WO completed their tack..., was because C altered course a few seconds _before_ WO completed their tack - _that_ is the essence of the RRS 13 violation found by the jury.

It wasn't my intention to judge the incident, only using their own words to define their view what "100% in the clear" was. A off boat view from the other boat of the incident is irrelevant in their mind (as signalled by the protest flag).

Waiting until Hobart to check if that assessment was right or not (to see it was a 50/50 call at best), is as dumb as it gets.

If it was done to chase 5 minutes less on water time at the other end, well that's cheating.

Share this post


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

DSQ's cannot be dropped usually.  Someone I know went from 1st to 7th that way.  It still can ruin your weekend and State Title.

Alright Random.

Normally it's DNE that can't be discarded so providing the series permits one or more discards a DSQ can be.

However local rules may change a scoring system.

Share this post


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

Lets make this simple.

What do you think about the Oatley and MR post protest comments?

Video on the front page.

I. Don't. Care.

But I did think others here may have had an interest in the way  RSHYR media  presented (edited?) what was said for the readers of their web news page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites