Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Rohanoz

Penalties? Huh?

Recommended Posts

Gonna need to be a bit of a change to the whole process I'd say...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue is the complete confusion on the boats.  Artemis had no clue what they needed to do to scrub their penalty and then PB in his presser mentioned that he thought we was still carrying the penalty so either he missed the comms or they don't inform the boats of an offsetting penalty. 

Share this post


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

The biggest issue is the complete confusion on the boats.  Artemis had no clue what they needed to do to scrub their penalty and then PB in his presser mentioned that he thought we was still carrying the penalty so either he missed the comms or they don't inform the boats of an offsetting penalty. 

i think what happened is that the device that shows tells him he had a penalty probably changed from penalty to no penalty (reflecting the offsetting penalties) .., and he didn't notice it.., so not having actively cleared his penalty, he assumed he still had one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly the 'reduce speed to 2 boatlengths behind - unless you take too long then it might be more and we will randomly say when' is a problem.  The signalling to the boats of the amount to take is also a problem when you are still travelling at 25+ downwind off foils.

I'm still trying to figure out what would happened in a race if the leading boat gets a penalty from the losing boat on a different leg, as nearly happened in an earlier NZ/BAR race.  Do they have to slow down and wait for the other boat to round the buoy and then get two lengths behind them?

Share this post


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

I'm still trying to figure out what would happened in a race if the leading boat gets a penalty from the losing boat on a different leg, as nearly happened in an earlier NZ/BAR race.  Do they have to slow down and wait for the other boat to round the buoy and then get two lengths behind them?

Getting 2 boat-lengths behind the other is only the punishment if it's a 'Part 2' penalty (i.e. a right of way or mark room type of thing, not a boundary issue) and if they're on the same leg. If not, then the rule is that you have to give up 2 boat lengths relative to the other boat - so reduce your lead (or increase their lead) by 2 boat lengths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said before, the entire process is fucking voodoo and way too stressful for the teams to figure out on the water. Perhaps a view of the umpires app that they are using to clear the penalty may help, but probly too much information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, this ambiguity of penalty communication and how/when they're scrubbed off is intentional for sure. Come crunch races in the Cup AC proper you can bet we'll see it cost someone a race. And it wont be OR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't a far fairer and unambiguous way be to simply apply time penalties?

 

If you are over the start early -> 20 second penalty PLUS the amount of time over early.

Out of bounds -> 15 seconds

 

If at the end of the race, you have accumulated 30 seconds of penalties but you win by 31 seconds or more, you win!

Share this post


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

The biggest issue is the complete confusion on the boats.  Artemis had no clue what they needed to do to scrub their penalty and then PB in his presser mentioned that he thought we was still carrying the penalty so either he missed the comms or they don't inform the boats of an offsetting penalty. 

Agree, 360. 

Share this post


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

Wouldn't a far fairer and unambiguous way be to simply apply time penalties?

 

If you are over the start early -> 20 second penalty PLUS the amount of time over early.

Out of bounds -> 15 seconds

 

If at the end of the race, you have accumulated 30 seconds of penalties but you win by 31 seconds or more, you win!

Yeah, time penalties make some sense to me, too. Not least of all because two lengths upwind is more than two lengths downwind.

I don't think it's implementable, though. The penalty has to be paid for during the race, otherwise you could get a penalty on purpose and still come out ahead if it gives you enough of an advantage on the course, e.g. if you push someone outside the lay line so they can't get to a gate, then fly away while they have to turn back

Also, 20 and 15 seconds seems waaaay too much for most penalties, and not enough for others, and you don't want the race directors to be making those sorts of decisions, I don't think.

Share this post


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

Agree, 360. 

+ 1. Listening to Ian Percy blast Richard Slater and lose the plot was sad for the race. Understand Ian's frustrations but in reality they had so many problems  they were never going to win the race anyway IMO

Share this post


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

Yeah, time penalties make some sense to me, too. Not least of all because two lengths upwind is more than two lengths downwind.

I don't think it's implementable, though. The penalty has to be paid for during the race, otherwise you could get a penalty on purpose and still come out ahead if it gives you enough of an advantage on the course, e.g. if you push someone outside the lay line so they can't get to a gate, then fly away while they have to turn back

Also, 20 and 15 seconds seems waaaay too much for most penalties, and not enough for others, and you don't want the race directors to be making those sorts of decisions, I don't think.

Set a "menu" of penalties. So could hit them with 30 seconds for pushing someone over lay but smaller for just going over the boundaries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the old days the Race Committee used to call them on the Radio & tell them.

We know that is possible since they call in Clear/OCS starts & I think on one of the DNFs they called in to advise the other boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are notified by the flashing coloured lights on the boat.  The lights are clear to see for everybody including us watching on TV.  PB just missed that the lights were no longer flashing as there was an offset penalty at the entry and he assumed he still had a penalty.

As for ART obviously a penalty for out of bounds but I think the penalty was "on" for too long.  Another "mistake" by the Umps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still like turns - at least as an option. Would be a much better solution for the conundrum of what happens in the different leg case. And turns today would have been 'interesting'...

Share this post


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

They are notified by the flashing coloured lights on the boat.  The lights are clear to see for everybody including us watching on TV.  PB just missed that the lights were no longer flashing as there was an offset penalty at the entry and he assumed he still had a penalty.

As for ART obviously a penalty for out of bounds but I think the penalty was "on" for too long.  Another "mistake" by the Umps?

no-one is sure wtf about the flashing lights, they are on, then off. need some succint coms as hoom says to let the guys know what is happening and why. We hear it on the fucking tele, why shouldn't the skippers?

voodoo shit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As quickly as they boats can spin on a dime, I can't see why a 360 is such a big deal.  It would ad an entire aspect to the game to have to figure out how to do a 360 while staying on the foils.  Likes it should be doable in all but really light wind.  I think the current system is dumber than two men fucking...... (NTTAWWT)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's IM talking to the boats, not Slater/umpires. The dinky little race-comms screen with it's text speak, would not have been the first thing on anyone's mind yesterday - but the Christmas tree is there for that reason.

AR may have been better just crossing back onto the course and sitting a while, one eye on the light, deep breaths.... Disrepute? :ph34r: In some sports that would get you disqualified/suspended.

I said some time ago that I didn't think the system would be up to the job - then again I'm against last minute rule changes, so....

Should have been tuned up earlier obviously - but ACDUH are usually slow to react, too much schmoozing.

On the one hand you want it relevant and tied to 'normal sailing', on the other most of that does not work any more, at least the way it's presently instituted!? So dial it back so the old rules work better - or start from scratch with a new set of rules? Clear and fair!

Hopefully that will all be up for review in Auckland :D soon

But for now, between the rules, 'variable' penalties, the inconsistent markers on the broadcasts, etc everyone from crews to commentators, is lost.

and the potential for a massive shit fight is there...

Share this post


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

It's IM talking to the boats, not Slater/umpires

Ah.

Point stands that the boats have an open channel that official messages can be sent to them through & it shouldn't be too hard for the message to be passed when clarification is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a somewhat related gripe - why with can't the course be kept true to the wind?  Yesterday's racing had a 10-15 degree persistent shift indicated on the telecast and commented on during each race. 

But, they set it once for the days racing and just roll on. Any other regatta director at even State level would be hung up if he let a course lie for several races without moving a mark. 

Imaginary boundaries, invisible penalty recourse, spectator fleets on the course - lucky the boats look good on TV. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scrap the whole two boat lengths crap, it's clearly impossible to accurately police and we have now had two or three seperate instances where boats appeared to be complying and yet were unable to clear and then were given additional penalties as a result.

Just have to boats turn square to the next mark (i.e. zero VMG but still sailing full speed) and hold that heading for 10 seconds (or whatever time makes sense in the context of the penalty) before resuming their course.

Does anyone know if the two boat lengths are relative to the other boat or relative to how fast you were travelling prior? They seem to be doing it off the other baot somehow which just doesn't work when they on different tacks or different legs, especially when the course is slanted to the wind.  That seems to be the only explanation as to why both ART vs JAP and ETNZ vs OR had trouble bleeding off penalties even though they were clearly slowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not working, but from a viewing perspective it is pretty awesome that they can dial up the umpire and query it immediately

Share this post


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

It's not working, but from a viewing perspective it is pretty awesome that they can dial up the umpire and query it immediately

"This is going all the way to the top Richard"

.....that sort of 'query'?

There was also something about physical violence once back ashore if I'm not mistaken. He and Ben trained together right? At boxing camp? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not in date order

 

snip...

I just hope that the umpiring is up to the job, can deal with the speeds involved and that the penalty system will not just give arbitrary results.

The boats will be further apart than any others, physically, at the point in time when a skipper will need to manoeuvre to avoid hitting a give way boat, while calling for a penalty - for example

 

snip..

Given the confusing, ever changing, 'unique to AC' rules', (that make all of these long term racing sailors athletes effectively 'beginners' again), the paid commentators clearly don't understand them, I sometimes have my doubts about the umpires and even the teams are still sending in requests for clarification after 2 years of using them

 

4 years, virtually no Match Racing practice or rule refinement. They have their own set of rules, a unique umpiring set up, a unique course and 'allowable' racing conditions  and boats that perform like no others. The whole thing should have been fine tuned by now - but no, everyone involved is still figuring it out and the less than optimal aspects are already effecting the outcome.

 

Umpire Question and Answer #8

Question:

Do the Umpires rely on the UmpApp graphics to determine whether there is contact

between yachts, and/or, whether a yacht is giving room?

Answer:

The graphics are accurate to 2cm. The UmpApp can scale into a very small detail,

however the scale of that detail is not shown. The UmpApp may also provide evidence of

contact by showing any ‘rebound’ movement of the yacht as a result of the contact.

The Umpires will have determined if a yacht is keeping clear well before any errors in the

UmpApp accuracy may have an impact.

In determining if a yacht has given room, then apart from the determination of what is a

seamanlike manoeuvre by the yacht, the umpires will be guided by any evidence that

suggests contact. This means that if the UmpApp suggests contact, there is contact. If the

on-water Umpires are certain there was contact (but the UmpApp indicates a close miss),

there is contact. If the UmpApp suggests contact but the on-water Umpires are certain

there was no contact, there was no contact.

The on-water umpires are also looking at contact with movable parts of the yachts such as

crew, code zeros or wings.

Finally, rule 14 addresses contact, however the rule states that there shall be no penalty

for contact unless the contact causes serious damage or injury to the crew. Therefore, the

evidence of serious contact is probably more obvious than what is shown on the UmpApp.

 

Still a fair bit of uncertainty - on all sides it seems......

 

Umpires Question and Answer #12

These questions are in relation to Match Racing in AC35.

Question A:

How soon after a yacht is given a penalty are the umpires looking for the yacht to start

reducing her VMG/VMC? What are the umpires looking at / for to determine that a yacht is

in fact reducing her VMG/VMC?

Answer A:

The umpires expect the yacht to start reducing her VMG/VMC immediately after receiving

the penalty signal or immediately after the starting signal if the penalty was signalled prior

to the start.

Question B:

At what point will you give a penalized yacht an additional penalty for not immediately

reducing her VMG/VMC?

Answer B:

When the umpires are certain that the penalized yacht is able reduce her VMG/VMC but is

not doing so, they shall penalize the yacht under rule 60.4(a). The umpires may

communicate the original penalty via radio in order to help them reach certainty for a

penalty under 60.4(a).

Question C:

Does Ump App show if you give a boat an additional penalty to a yacht for not taking her

penalty in a timely way?

Answer C:

The loss line on the UmpApp is adjusted after the umpires adds an additional penalty and

is noted in the incident column as an additional penalty. It does not indicate what the

additional penalty was for.

Question D:

A yacht is OCS and several lengths ahead of the other yacht. She slowly slows such that

she is still ahead at Mark 1. She gybes in the zone of Mark 1 and her penalty clears. Is this

OK?

Answer D:

In a Match Race the umpires would usually expect an OCS penalty to be cleared before

Mark 1. Assuming the non-penalized yacht is sailing as normal, in this scenario the

umpires should penalize the yacht that was OCS with an additional penalty under rule

60.4(b].

Question E:

Do you anticipate the “2 lengths back” when the other boat is clearly faster and clear the

penalty before the penalized yacht is physically “2 lengths back”, or do you wait until the

penalized boat is actually “2 lengths back” before clearing the penalty?

Answer E:

The penalty is only cleared when the umpires are certain that the required distance has

been lost and at that time the umpires should signal that the penalty is completed.

Question F:

What do the umpires add for “intentional fouls” and what are some clear examples the

umpires have seen and additional penalties the umpires have added for that? (like sailing

OOB to get to a layline)

Answer F:

Rule 60.4 allows the umpires to penalize for more than Part 2 rules (“When Yachts Meet”).

When the umpires are certain that the requirements of 60.4 (b], (c], or (d) are met they

shall either give an “other” penalty under 44.2 (c] or if the yacht has an existing penalty,

the umpires would add an additional penalty(s) of the type the yacht already has.

Examples that the umpires have seen include ‘barging’ at the windward start mark or

going outside the boundary and gaining an advantage through a delay in gybing.

Question G:

Both yachts are OCS – how do you manage that?

Answer G:

The conditions under rule 44.3(b] have been met. In this case the OCS penalty(s) cannot

be incurred as intended. The policy will be to manually turn off the penalty on the yacht the

umpires consider to be behind and then turn off the penalty on the other yacht when both

yachts are the same distance along the Mark 1 course axis. Please note that this has not

yet occurred in a race so the umpires have no real time experience of the situation.

Question H:

A yacht is forced OCS by another yacht’s foul, the other will end up “2 back” in a match

race. Do you have any way to compensate the OCS yacht in a fleet race?

Answer H:

This is a question regarding fleet racing. Rule 44.4(g) allows the umpires to exonerate a

yacht. To do so the umpires must be certain that the yacht was compelled to be OCS as a

result of a rule breach.

Question I:

For a VMG penalty in a match race where the other yacht is on a different leg or is going

slowly for some reason, how do you judge the loss of 2 lengths? (the sailors need to know

how to anticipate the clearing of the penalty). Is it a loss compared to a theoretical boat on

the same angle of sail at a theoretical VMG, or a boat on a theoretical VMG angle for the

TW along the course axis? Do you have a theoretical polar in the system?

Answer I:

The umpires will compare the loss to the other yacht. If the umpires are certain the penalty

is not being incurred as intended, rule 44.3(b] provides guidance on what the umpires

should do. The only guide for sailors would be the relative position of the other yacht or

guidance from the umpires via RO comms.

There is no theoretical polar in the UmpApp nor does the rule refer to a theoretical boat on

the same angle of sail.

Question J:

Will the yachts know if they are given a VMG or Boat on Boat penalty? Perhaps on the

RaceComms display?

Answer J:

RO Comms tells a yacht that they have a penalty by text of “Penalty” sent to the

RaceComms display and the Blue penalty lights flashing. There are effectively only 3

times where a “VMG penalty” is given in a match race: Boundary (28.3); Part 2 rules when

yachts are on different legs; and umpires initiated penalties under rule 60.4 (b] to (d). The

umpires are also developing RO Comms to the yachts via radio in order to reinforce that a

penalty has been assigned and whether the penalty is a ‘boat on boat’ penalty or not.

Question K:

When is a yacht on the first leg (ref rule 44.4(d))? Is it when it crosses the starting line after

the starting signal, or wherever she might be after the starting signal?

Answer K:

A yacht is on the first leg of the course from the starting signal until she crosses the

extension of the line from the leeward gate through Mark 1.

Question L:

A support boat breaks rule 87. Who can protest? (can’t be the yacht). Who hears the

protest? What are the penalty options?

Answer L:

The Regatta Director may protest for a breach of rule 87 (rule 60.2(a)). The Jury shall hear

the protest (rule 63.1). The penalty options are outlined in rule 64.1(a).

 

The helms and the umpires need to get together to establish what is a reasonable but safeish distance to claim a penalty from

Needing to get under the other boat is a bit extreme at those speeds

20170527_AC35LIVE_RP4321.JPG

 

snip...

- AC has it's own rules. And the penalty rule has changed again - just in time to confuse everybody for 2016

here: is the amended rule 44 - penalties given by umpires.. https://docs.google.com/a/acracemgt.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YWNyYWNlbWd0LmNvbXxub3RpY2Vib2FyZHxneDo2OGEyNTlhZDVkYjg5NTJh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

welcome to the loto cup for the entertainment of TV land, all we need is some blood to really get the ratings up.

This is turn into more of a farce every day.

Share this post


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

On a somewhat related gripe - why with can't the course be kept true to the wind?  Yesterday's racing had a 10-15 degree persistent shift indicated on the telecast and commented on during each race. 

But, they set it once for the days racing and just roll on. Any other regatta director at even State level would be hung up if he let a course lie for several races without moving a mark. 

Imaginary boundaries, invisible penalty recourse, spectator fleets on the course - lucky the boats look good on TV. 

the courses have not been square since the thing started...

i think  that with the spectator boats at whatever distance from the boundaries they are, they can't change the course - because all the spectator boats would need to move

Share this post


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

the courses have not been square since the thing started...

i think  that with the spectator boats at whatever distance from the boundaries they are, they can't change the course - because all the spectator boats would need to move

They can set the spectators far enough back from the initial boundaries at the beginning of the day to accommodate possible course realignments without making a bunch of spectators up-anchor and move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

on one day the course was off by like 30deg - that would require the spectators to be pretty far away

but yes.., it could be done.

also, because of the speed of the boats, and the shortness of the courses, they would have to have the change marks in before the race started.., and just signal at a mark whether the boats should go to a change mark or the original mark

probably they would need change marks to the right and left.

but, you would still have the problem that the bottom gate is not square, because i doubt they could get them moved in time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sailing and sport is secondary - and you know as long as they keep banging on about how incredible it all is, virtually no one will notice

Share this post


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

There was also something about physical violence once back ashore if I'm not mistaken.

You are mistaken.

Though IP would have been well advised to button it as far as what he did in fact say.

 

Share this post


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

You are mistaken.

Though IP would have been well advised to button it as far as what he did in fact say.

 

 

No, I don't think I am. I have seen other people quoting his threat on various threads. I can't be bothered to re-watch his rant to get an exact quote, but I'm not sure why you would deny it?

Share this post


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

On a somewhat related gripe - why with can't the course be kept true to the wind?  Yesterday's racing had a 10-15 degree persistent shift indicated on the telecast and commented on during each race. 

But, they set it once for the days racing and just roll on. Any other regatta director at even State level would be hung up if he let a course lie for several races without moving a mark. 

Imaginary boundaries, invisible penalty recourse, spectator fleets on the course - lucky the boats look good on TV. 

+1000 - a short biased narrow track  = procession

Share this post


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

 

No, I don't think I am. I have seen other people quoting his threat on various threads. I can't be bothered to re-watch his rant to get an exact quote, but I'm not sure why you would deny it?

I believe IP said "I'm going to rip his head off".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a world where flight time is king, an easy to understand penalty could be you gotta dunk both hulls.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can anyone calculate the distance that SBTJ sailed while Artemis was parked?

Share this post


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

can anyone calculate the distance that SBTJ sailed while Artemis was parked?

In terms of distance between marks (rather than actual sailing distance), according to virtual eye SBTJ were about 280m ahead when Artemis rounded that bottom mark, and about 680m when the penalty came off.

Share this post


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

You are mistaken.

Though IP would have been well advised to button it as far as what he did in fact say.

 

Ol' IP is a pretty tightly wound unit, isn't he? - guessing he didn't get his spot because of his calm and settling influence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, jawjaw said:

In terms of distance between marks (rather than actual sailing distance), according to virtual eye SBTJ were about 280m ahead when Artemis rounded that bottom mark, and about 680m when the penalty came off.

And is there any complete explanation of how the effective penalty became so severe.

Share this post


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

No, I don't think I am. I have seen other people quoting his threat on various threads. I can't be bothered to re-watch his rant to get an exact quote, but I'm not sure why you would deny it?

People love to exaggerate bad behaviour. All those posts on SA claiming BA punched the photographer, which he did not as the sequence of photographs shows perfectly clearly. However it's more fun to repeat the legend,

I'm not defending what either BA did or IM said but I have listened to the comments off Artemis at least twice and do not recall a threat of violence.

Does anyone really believe that if IM had threatened violence against an umpire that he would not be looking at R69 processes? Yet no intimation of that as far as anybody has heard.

 

 

Share this post


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

And is there any complete explanation of how the effective penalty became so severe.

I don't know how they calculate the exact distance, no. But the umpires can add to penalties for various reasons, including (a) if they think the penalty was deliberate, and (b) if the team doesn't immediately do whatever they need to to get rid of the penalty. Since they intentionally sailed out of bounds, then still hadn't cleared by the start of the next leg, it just added up. They probably added up too much, but I'm not sure how they determine the distance.

I do think Artemis were hard done by, though. They sailed outside the boundary because of a boat issue, rather than to get some advantage, which I think should be taken into account. They also tried to reduce their VMG immediately and got hurt by the fact that STJ were also going slow, which should also be taken into account.

Share this post


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

I don't know how they calculate the exact distance, no. But the umpires can add to penalties for various reasons, including (a) if they think the penalty was deliberate, and (b) if the team doesn't immediately do whatever they need to to get rid of the penalty. Since they intentionally sailed out of bounds, then still hadn't cleared by the start of the next leg, it just added up. They probably added up too much, but I'm not sure how they determine the distance.

I do think Artemis were hard done by, though. They sailed outside the boundary because of a boat issue, rather than to get some advantage, which I think should be taken into account. They also tried to reduce their VMG immediately and got hurt by the fact that STJ were also going slow, which should also be taken into account.

The chief umpire said they added an extra penalty because Art when so far outside the boundary and reentered the course so far down the track that they probably saved themselves one gybe on that leg. Also, because SBTJ slowed so much toward the end of that leg, while Art plowed down at full speed, the required VMG distance penalty wasn't relieved until well after they were both on the next leg (notwithstanding Percy's entertainingly irreverent comments toward the chief umpire). 

Share this post


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

I don't know how they calculate the exact distance, no. But the umpires can add to penalties for various reasons, including (a) if they think the penalty was deliberate, and (b) if the team doesn't immediately do whatever they need to to get rid of the penalty. Since they intentionally sailed out of bounds, then still hadn't cleared by the start of the next leg, it just added up. They probably added up too much, but I'm not sure how they determine the distance.

I do think Artemis were hard done by, though. They sailed outside the boundary because of a boat issue, rather than to get some advantage, which I think should be taken into account. They also tried to reduce their VMG immediately and got hurt by the fact that STJ were also going slow, which should also be taken into account.

As as been suggested above, I would think the best way to take the penalty is to sail at speed across the course, i.e.  with VMG = 0. That would minimize getting back to speed once on course. In the race yesterday, Artemis finally slowed basically to a stop. Just the time to get going again would have been fatal to their chances in the race over and above what they had already lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 "they probably saved themselves one gybe on that leg"

There is something wrong with any penalty system that involves the word "probably".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things:

1) most concerning was that PB was unaware his penalty was cleared. Either he's clueless or the "lights" are not a reliable communication method.  Seems like you'd want a positive indicator - maybe audible, in addition to xmas tree?

2) with all the "app" tracking and data collection - seems like you could have a "course made good" penalty (relative to your opponent) that would show up as an instrument readout - sort of like a temp gauge. So you can see if you are burning it off, or in fact adding to the penalty distance by ripping it while your opponent is going slow.  And umpires could give it a bump if you add a second penalty or are not prompt in scrubbing it.

 

Share this post


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

People love to exaggerate bad behaviour. All those posts on SA claiming BA punched the photographer, which he did not as the sequence of photographs shows perfectly clearly. However it's more fun to repeat the legend,

I'm not defending what either BA did or IM said but I have listened to the comments off Artemis at least twice and do not recall a threat of violence.

Does anyone really believe that if IM had threatened violence against an umpire that he would not be looking at R69 processes? Yet no intimation of that as far as anybody has heard.

 

 

I could equally say that Poms love to minimise the unacceptable behaviour of their top sailing talent.

You seem to be on you own in denying the threat was made.

No rule 69 process proves nothing with this bunch. Far worse has been swept under the table.

Would you deny that his behaviour was a breach of good manners?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He might not have punched him but he did jump on the photo boat and start screaming at the driver.  I would say that was bad behavior wouldn't you.  Personally I would have push him off my boat. Fuck him. 

Share this post


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

The chief umpire said they added an extra penalty because Art when so far outside the boundary and reentered the course so far down the track that they probably saved themselves one gybe on that leg. Also, because SBTJ slowed so much toward the end of that leg, while Art plowed down at full speed, the required VMG distance penalty wasn't relieved until well after they were both on the next leg (notwithstanding Percy's entertainingly irreverent comments toward the chief umpire). 

You nailed it TN.  They did gain an advantage by missing doing a gybe by the time they reentered and with SBTJ slowing and then going upwind while ART was plowing along @ 40 kts just took a long time to drop that distance required.   The ideal play is to come across the boundary back into the race course slow,  have the penalty run off fast then hit the gas.  With all the shit going on,  one can hardly fault them for missing that one.   It is better not to sail out of the race course to start with,  unforced error and not the way to win.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TN_Kiwi said:

They can set the spectators far enough back from the initial boundaries at the beginning of the day to accommodate possible course realignments without making a bunch of spectators up-anchor and move.

Shit! The other day they couldn't even keep the spectator fleet of the course they had set. You expect these turkeys to shift them between races?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, I know - an impossible ask in reality. Anyway, with the tight TV window, the RC is not going to burn time screwing around moving marks. The boats just have to work out how to cope with any significant shift. Like, if it's going to be mostly a follow-the-leader few-passing-lanes race, you can bet the start and the little reach leg will be a battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@nav

As far I can tell from reading all those questions and answers absolutely nobody has a clue what is going on and they just basically meander about until the lights change...

What a mess!

Most of the answers appear to be long the lines "when the umpire subjectively decides" or something to that effect.

Share this post


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

You seem to be on you own in denying the threat was made.

 

 

And you seem content to repeat what a couple of people on the internet have said as constituting evidence. So far the evidence of my own ears indicates otherwise. If someone can be bothered to find the clip and post it so we can listen again, then we'd know who is correct and if that happens and I am wrong, I'll say I was wrong.

I've already said twice in replies that what IM certainly did say was bad judgement and yes, bad manners. So I've now said it three times. Is that enough?

In the absence of further actual information, dogwatch out.

Share this post


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

 

And you seem content to repeat what a couple of people on the internet have said as constituting evidence. So far the evidence of my own ears indicates otherwise. If someone can be bothered to find the clip and post it so we can listen again, then we'd know who is correct and if that happens and I am wrong, I'll say I was wrong.

I've already said twice in replies that what IM certainly did say was bad judgement and yes, bad manners. So I've now said it three times. Is that enough?

In the absence of further actual information, dogwatch out.

Go to this post:

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/184508-race-replays/&do=findComment&comment=5782130

Click the link for race 3. Skip to about 9:50 and hit play. At 9:58 you'll hear IP say "I'm going to rip his head off", just as people have told you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your talking about Percy he clearly quite says "I'm going to rip his head off!" it's not muffled and quite easy to make out .

What exactly that translates to is pretty open to interpretation, but I would personally put it down to frustration without actual intent, they were justifiably pretty pissed with the process.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, TN_Kiwi said:

The chief umpire said they added an extra penalty because Art when so far outside the boundary and reentered the course so far down the track that they probably saved themselves one gybe on that leg. Also, because SBTJ slowed so much toward the end of that leg, while Art plowed down at full speed, the required VMG distance penalty wasn't relieved until well after they were both on the next leg (notwithstanding Percy's entertainingly irreverent comments toward the chief umpire). 

2 hours ago, Soho said:

You nailed it TN.  They did gain an advantage by missing doing a gybe by the time they reentered and with SBTJ slowing and then going upwind while ART was plowing along @ 40 kts just took a long time to drop that distance required.   The ideal play is to come across the boundary back into the race course slow,  have the penalty run off fast then hit the gas.  With all the shit going on,  one can hardly fault them for missing that one.   It is better not to sail out of the race course to start with,  unforced error and not the way to win.  

I think one of the challenges for ART is that they could not see what the judges are seeing. SBTJ were 200 metres down the course with a rain squall rolling through and reduced visibility. ART couldn't see that SBTJ were in displacement mode and doing sub 20 knots. The other challenge, as raise by Ken Read, is that ART re-entered the course past the lay line for the bottom mark and so were broad reaching at 40+ knots even in slow mode.

I do wonder if SBTJ were gaming the system at this stage by going slow. It looked like survival mode but I do wonder. Dean is a wily old fox...

Mex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Boybland said:

If your talking about Percy he clearly quite says "I'm going to rip his head off!" it's not muffled and quite easy to make out .

What exactly that translates to is pretty open to interpretation, but I would personally put it down to frustration without actual intent, they were justifiably pretty pissed with the process.

 

Of course not. After he calmed the fuck down he probably apologised in private and had a beer with him.

Seems a pretty small community. 

 

Share this post


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

Go to this post:

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/184508-race-replays/&do=findComment&comment=5782130

Click the link for race 3. Skip to about 9:50 and hit play. At 9:58 you'll hear IP say "I'm going to rip his head off", just as people have told you.

 

OK thanks. I believe you.

Share this post


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

Of course not. After he calmed the fuck down he probably apologised in private and had a beer with him.

Seems a pretty small community. 

 

Nice post. Probably the most accurate comment for nearly every scenario playing out on these forums!

So easy to forget for those on the outside looking in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In terms of distance between marks (rather than actual sailing distance), according to virtual eye SBTJ were about 280m ahead when Artemis rounded that bottom mark, and about 680m when the penalty came off.

Thing is OR-JPN was 485m ahead when Art went outside the boundary and 630m when Art re-entered.

7uK7vjj.jpg

Xr9M9zr.jpg

Umpires made them wait until OR-JPN were 630 + 4 boatlengths ahead again.

 

To me the loss of 250m by going outside the boundary can't reasonably be considered a gain -> having already lost more than 4 boatlengths in process they shouldn't have had to clear any more penalty.

 

Further there was a Q&A or something that said penalties would be cleared if the non-penalised boat was sailing abnormally slow -> making it hard to clear the penalty & I think that circumstance clearly applied here since OR-JPN were sailing very slow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the probablies and when is it cleared and everything else is to complicated. 360 turn. Simple, clear uneuivocal. proven.

 

These aren't the 72s, they can turn. So reasonable as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't deal with gaining a significant advantage and is effectively a dsq in most other situations.

Share this post


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

Thing is OR-JPN was 485m ahead when Art went outside the boundary and 630m when Art re-entered.

Umpires made them wait until OR-JPN were 630 + 4 boatlengths ahead again.

 

To me the loss of 250m by going outside the boundary can't reasonably be considered a gain -> having already lost more than 4 boatlengths in process they shouldn't have had to clear any more penalty.

 

Further there was a Q&A or something that said penalties would be cleared if the non-penalised boat was sailing abnormally slow -> making it hard to clear the penalty & I think that circumstance clearly applied here since OR-JPN were sailing very slow.

Yeah, I noticed the re-entry distance, but I would be shocked if they were still using that as their baseline once they go back upwind. 630m upwind is a much much bigger gap than 630m downwind, it just wouldn't be fair. You'd be adding the required boat lengths plus a few hundred metres more. That's why I measured from the bottom mark - so the distances were comparable.

Having said that, my only reason for thinking they aren't doing it that way is that it would be stupid, which isn't actually enough to rule it out, so maybe they are doing it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes The separate cases of deliberate rule breaking ,gaining an advantage, breaking the opponents boat etc is a DSQ

 

And breaking the fundamental rule of fair siling - if they still have it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't Artemis have been allowed as much room as they wanted at that top gate, on account of being the leeward boat? They can luff there if they want, right?

If so, what made it a 'close' call (in Richard Slater's words) as to whether STJ gave them enough room or not?

And if now, why weren't Oracle penalized when pushing ETNZ there in their first race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DSQ would be pretty tough given they were initially attempting to avoid JPN, whether they needed to or not is somewhat irelevant they felt it was necessary due to reduced visibility.

They definitely need an alternative option for the boats that they know they can use if needed, the slow down clearly has some issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jawjaw said:

Yeah, I noticed the re-entry distance, but I would be shocked if they were still using that as their baseline once they go back upwind. 630m upwind is a much much bigger gap than 630m downwind, it just wouldn't be fair. You'd be adding the required boat lengths plus a few hundred metres more. That's why I measured from the bottom mark - so the distances were comparable.

Having said that, my only reason for thinking they aren't doing it that way is that it would be stupid, which isn't actually enough to rule it out, so maybe they are doing it that way.

They seem to be doing something odd like that, ETNZ were re penalised against OR for not slowing down enough even though they were, the course was something like 15 - 20 degrees biased to the tack they were on and they had no choice in that due to the boundary, OR were on the other tack and making poor VMG as a result.

Except in the case of a pass or start the penalty really needs to be something that only relates to the penalised boat.

Share this post


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

Shouldn't Artemis have been allowed as much room as they wanted at that top gate, on account of being the leeward boat? They can luff there if they want, right?

If so, what made it a 'close' call (in Richard Slater's words) as to whether STJ gave them enough room or not?

And if now, why weren't Oracle penalized when pushing ETNZ there in their first race?

Just extrapolating from the RRS (I know, they have their own rules...) they couldn't take as much room as they wanted because they were port and STJ stbd.  To my eye, ART overstood they layline, came screaming in, hunting STJ, and then stuffed their turn to sell the "not enough room for a seamanlike rounding" thing.  If STJ had stayed out of the circle, I don't see how anyone could argue that it wasn't enough room to round in a seamanlike manner.  But from the nbcsn coverage it looks like they were inside of it.

Share this post


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

Just extrapolating from the RRS (I know, they have their own rules...) they couldn't take as much room as they wanted because they were port and STJ stbd.  To my eye, ART overstood they layline, came screaming in, hunting STJ, and then stuffed their turn to sell the "not enough room for a seamanlike rounding" thing.  If STJ had stayed out of the circle, I don't see how anyone could argue that it wasn't enough room to round in a seamanlike manner.  But from the nbcsn coverage it looks like they were inside of it.

That was Race right there, SBTJ must be feeling just be gutted.

Helluva series between these two teams, just Wow!

Share this post


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

Shouldn't Artemis have been allowed as much room as they wanted at that top gate, on account of being the leeward boat? They can luff there if they want, right?

If so, what made it a 'close' call (in Richard Slater's words) as to whether STJ gave them enough room or not?

And if now, why weren't Oracle penalized when pushing ETNZ there in their first race?

They weren't the leeward boat until they tacked, up until the point they hit the circle they were the give way boat, once they hit the circle first they were right of way ONLY around the mark, if SBTJ had stayed outside the circle they should have been right as rain, although Artemis could have luffed them once they had tacked to Starboard if they chose to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artemis definitely sold it.  I didn't think it was a penalty, but to be fair they were well and truly due after some of the calls that gone against them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were not ROW until they reached Close hauled course after they tacked.

 

Artemis used way too much room. That should have been a no foul or foul on Artemis. The umps pooch another call.

 

something needs to change.

 

Tink

Share this post


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

Doesn't deal with gaining a significant advantage and is effectively a dsq in most other situations.

Couldn't the umpires keep the boat spinning until any advantage has been squashed?

 

I just think 2 boat lengths is way too subjective. Even if the umpires have the technology to measure it the boat has no idea when they have wiped the penalty until the light goes out, at which time they cant start sending it again. Which makes me think most penalties will end up being more than a 2 boat length penalty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was reckless but AR somehow got away with it.

Maybe SBTJ should have tacked earlier, on top of AR, gone for the right gate mark with speed, forcing AR to either follow or turn the 180 around the left mark. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've been thinking about this since I posted, and I see how it makes sense. Until Artemis tacked, STJ only had to give them mark room. After they tacked, they could do what they want, and STJ had to give them room for that. The part that was 'close' was whether STJ gave them enough room to tack in the first place, not whether they gave enough room after. Makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks on the video like Aertemis's bow was well beyond the mark before they started the sharp turn to port, and that makes it looks like they were taking a lot of room. But the "boat" is supported by foils midship at at the stern, so can't actually turn until the foils get abeam of, or past the mark. And as Ken Read noted, the notion of seamanlike rounding has to be interpreted in the context of 30kt speed.

I thought for sure it was going to be a collision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SBTJ saw ETNZ 'get' ART in the same situation ... because ART didn't give enough room - they would have won if they had. Same thing here - SBTJ would have blown around ART if they gave them more room and could have held on to win. This was a very bad risk assessment because, if there's no racing on Friday, whoever won this race skips through to the finals. SBTJ better be praying hard tonight for sailable conditions tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The umpires have clarified what constitutes mark room, at least for one particular situation that we've seen a few times: https://docs.google.com/a/acracemgt.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YWNyYWNlbWd0LmNvbXxub3RpY2Vib2FyZHxneDo0OTM3ZjA4MzA2NmFmOTNh

That's quite a lot of room - three boat lengths! I wonder if this is new or the same guidelines they've always used. Presumably it also must apply at the leeward gate.

Share this post


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

The umpires have clarified what constitutes mark room, at least for one particular situation that we've seen a few times: https://docs.google.com/a/acracemgt.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YWNyYWNlbWd0LmNvbXxub3RpY2Vib2FyZHxneDo0OTM3ZjA4MzA2NmFmOTNh

That's quite a lot of room - three boat lengths! I wonder if this is new or the same guidelines they've always used. Presumably it also must apply at the leeward gate.

Otherwise know as the "stay the fuck out of the circle" clarification, something which ART and SBTJ failed to do but easily could have in both cases.

Share this post


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

The umpires have clarified what constitutes mark room, at least for one particular situation that we've seen a few times: https://docs.google.com/a/acracemgt.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YWNyYWNlbWd0LmNvbXxub3RpY2Vib2FyZHxneDo0OTM3ZjA4MzA2NmFmOTNh

That's quite a lot of room - three boat lengths! I wonder if this is new or the same guidelines they've always used. Presumably it also must apply at the leeward gate.

There are different rules for the AC in terms of Mark room. The AC rules are substantially more permissive. 

Share this post


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

There are different rules for the AC in terms of Mark room. The AC rules are substantially more permissive. 

I meant whether this interpretation of the rule is new in the last few days, or whether they've used it throughout this AC. There've been a couple of times that they've been very vague about how much room is enough - if they'd had this 'you need to be outside the circle' interpretation all along then you would've thought they'd have said so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jawjaw said:

I meant whether this interpretation of the rule is new in the last few days, or whether they've used it throughout this AC. There've been a couple of times that they've been very vague about how much room is enough - if they'd had this 'you need to be outside the circle' interpretation all along then you would've thought they'd have said so.

I agree, that seems to be exactly how they have been policing, but it's certainly doesn't appear to be how the crews have been sailing it so presumably it has been only vaguely conveyed to them what constitutes rounding room.

That said both ART and SBTJ pushed unnecessarily close both times, seemingly without any real good reason given both could have avoided the situation without really compromising their own position and the moment they compromise the other guys, well thats the whole reason the rules are there in the first place...

If you don't force the umpires to make a decision, you will never be unhappy with their decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think by that rule the early bottom mark Art vs ETNZ penalty was legit then.

Firms up the Art vs OR-JPN top mark penalty.

Share this post


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

I think by that rule the early bottom mark Art vs ETNZ penalty was legit then.

The penalty they (wrongly) called them for was port/starboard, not mark room, but I guess that doesn't mean there wasn't a mark room issue there.

Still, I don't think it's cut and dried, even with this guideline. It says that if they're both within that red segment then it's up to the umpires - it's not like the second they're both there it's a penalty. I think because Artemis only hit the very top part of that segment, and were ahead rather than side-by-side, they might still rule it fair.

Share this post


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

I meant whether this interpretation of the rule is new in the last few days, or whether they've used it throughout this AC. There've been a couple of times that they've been very vague about how much room is enough - if they'd had this 'you need to be outside the circle' interpretation all along then you would've thought they'd have said so.

They should just get rid of it all together. RRS18 isn't required in a 2 boat gun fight. The other rules dictate who has to keep clear and RRS16 stops a right of way boat pushing another boat into the mark once they are alongside it.

"You need to be outside the circle" is basically saying that as mark room does not apply outside the circle.

The only thing stopping them is some bolocks about "not changing the game". They already have in a number of ways, not least with this QA, so fuck that.

Share this post


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

I agree, that seems to be exactly how they have been policing, but it's certainly doesn't appear to be how the crews have been sailing it so presumably it has been only vaguely conveyed to them what constitutes rounding room.

That said both ART and SBTJ pushed unnecessarily close both times, seemingly without any real good reason given both could have avoided the situation without really compromising their own position and the moment they compromise the other guys, well thats the whole reason the rules are there in the first place...

If you don't force the umpires to make a decision, you will never be unhappy with their decision.

If AR had gybed 2-3 BL earlier and come in super aggressive to the mark they would of been well clear and there would of been no issue.

Share this post


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

Looks like someone (no prizes for guessing who) wanted to know if Slingsby having his head over the white line was legal: https://docs.google.com/a/acracemgt.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YWNyYWNlbWd0LmNvbXxub3RpY2Vib2FyZHxneDozMTNiYzc0YTVkNjRkMDhk

Spoiler: it is, as long as he's only touching the boat behind the white line.

You can look, but you better not touch
(Bruce Springsteen)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16.6.2017 at 7:05 PM, jawjaw said:

The umpires have clarified what constitutes mark room, at least for one particular situation that we've seen a few times: https://docs.google.com/a/acracemgt.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YWNyYWNlbWd0LmNvbXxub3RpY2Vib2FyZHxneDo0OTM3ZjA4MzA2NmFmOTNh

That's quite a lot of room - three boat lengths! I wonder if this is new or the same guidelines they've always used. Presumably it also must apply at the leeward gate.

 

On 17.6.2017 at 7:01 AM, jawjaw said:

I meant whether this interpretation of the rule is new in the last few days, or whether they've used it throughout this AC. There've been a couple of times that they've been very vague about how much room is enough - if they'd had this 'you need to be outside the circle' interpretation all along then you would've thought they'd have said so.

 

:D

Tend to agree on that ^ incident. Artemis were still settling after the previous manoeuvre, sailed straight past the mark and almost T-boned SBTJ, before starting to round. The umpires are used to estimating boat lengths in determining if someone has left enough room, seemed to me they needed to consider how many boat lengths beyond the mark it was reasonable to sail while still expecting the other boat to get out of your way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites