duncan (the other one)

VOR Leg 4 Melbourne to Honkers

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Potter said:

SOrry, no, but it was Dee, Brian and Arnaud. Pindar, Aviva and Akena.

Found this: sounds like the situation you mentioned:

Quote

“When you see people like Mich and Vincent Riou and Peyron in the race, you think you don’t have much chance – maybe tenth or fifteenth if you’re lucky, but finishing was really the goal, so finishing seventh is great. After 105 days alone, you necessarily change somewhere inside. Your family, partner and team are also transformed. Of course, there were some hard times. Gusts at 85 knots. I call up Denis Horeau, the Race Director, and he tells me they’re looking at the weather for the three of us at the Horn. So the race was suspended. I’ve known Brian for some time and now I know Dee well, so it was nice to be with them and it all went well.”

“Off Tierra del Fuego, you have violent gusts. You see the snow-capped mountains and as you approach the Horn, you tell yourself you have to merit the Horn. When you’re in the storm, you don’t have time to worry. You get ready for it and get your food and water and survival gear together and just wait. You can’t sleep or rest as you wonder how bad it will be. After you have a great story to tell and you feel like you have accomplished something. Brian told me to get close to the Horn to see what it looked like. I did the English Vendée Globe. I knew Brian from the Mini days and Sam and as I said before, Dee is extraordinary.”

http://www.marinedirectoryhq.com/directory/view_news/8557?page=2

Share this post


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

Francis I (and others) have questioned this statement of yours and highlighted again for your convenience.

OK, one more time - the spirit is clear as well. Favour safety over all else. Happy?

comma - the IJ's call was correct. 

EOM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stief,

About you ques of JM’s intrview.

- seems to have slept 20h straight on return flight from Honkers. 

- “navigateur” means “browser” for the techies, but navigator for the boaties

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Stief,

About you ques of JM’s intrview.

- seems to have slept 20h straight on return flight from Honkers. 

- “navigateur” means “browser” for the techies, but navigator for the boaties

Got it, thanks. 20 hrs on the flight back makes even more sense, and also makes sense that google would prefer to remember the web browser Netscape Navigator :) 

Share this post


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

But sure RC organised a IJ hearing because Scally reply to the IC's warning was "no problems we see the reef but had already decided we want to go negative VMG right now and do a 50 mile detour for laughs. Thanks anyway".

I hope your not a detective and have a family to support.

With no rules of penalty in this situation, the RC can help to prevent the situations, none of us want to see, without involving detectives and lawyers - and I can't believe any sailors want to bring sailing even more into the courtrooms than it already is.

The penalty was the interruption of their course and speed, which eventually cost them 50 miles. That should be enough to motivate every team to prepare properly, in stead of relying on "the eye in the sky".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG I can't believe the crap that's been going on in this thread and Randum isn't here stirring it....

What none of you know, is whether any of the other teams had any better information on the location of the reef. The rest of the teams may have just been lucky that they weren't on course to hit it. Unless you know this, then perhaps you should not be complaining that Libby was not less prepared than the other navigators and therefore Scallywag deserved a penalty.

This place is really has a trial by mob mentality....

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

OK, one more time - the spirit is clear as well. Favour safety over all else. Happy?

comma - the IJ's call was correct. 

EOM

Francis maybe you need to check the batteries in your Misrepresentation Avoidance Meter? 

That or read what people write before carrying on like a pork chop.

6 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

RC had no option but to warn them. Doesn't mean that warning should be penalty free.

 

4 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

There can be no argument Scally had to be warned. A potential penalty is a different subject. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My reading of the RRS states that there is only one penalty available for a breach of r 41(d), which is DSQ.  Time penalties and the like are not available.  

In any event, irrespective of the alleged competence or otherwise of the crew of Scallywag in potentially sailing over the reef, this was unsolicited information from the race organisers.  It may be the case that the other boats could have made a claim for redress against the organisers (have not checked if they could or not yet), but there is really no basis for applying any penalty on Scallywag.

Jack, I can also see no basis for alleging that the organisers were other than a "disinterested source" vis-a-vis Scallyway as opposed to the other boats in general.   Even in your arguments, the "interest" appears to be an interest in the safety and success of the race, not the success or otherwise of Scallywag in particular.  The "interest" here clearly has to be more than just an interest in the event as a whole.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Even in your arguments, the "interest" appears to be an interest in the safety and success of the race, not the success or otherwise of Scallywag in particular. 

wags is part of the race and as such her safety obviously impacts on the success of the race .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck I love how you have that thought at random intervals.  I laugh every time !!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Francis maybe you need to check the batteries in your Misrepresentation Avoidance Meter? 

Read what I wrote. Para one - all about the interpretation of "disinterested".  Para two, all about how the rules need to manage safety as a priority. Final line, two components, first component, spirit of disinterested, second component spirit of the rules, summary - IJ got it right.

I find it extremely difficult to see how it is possible to interpret what I wrote in any other way. Somehow you are desperately trying to imbue it with some other meaning. 

You are carrying on that there should be a penalty, and somehow have the bit between your teeth that this is the one true way. I totally disagree. Got that? I argue that there should on no account be a penalty, and the spirit of the rules - that is the grandfather clause that safety trumps all else, means that the rules should never reflect a situation where to hold onto a racing advantage that there should ever be an incentive - for anyone - to breach clear safety issues. I explained at length later what sort of issues these might be. You might disagree, but that is your prerogative. But don't come all over claiming I am backtracking or misrepresenting what I said. If there is anything that contradicts this viewpoint it is my fault for not being clear enough. You are welcome to point out where I have been less than clear on this, but do try to stay on page, and realise that this is, and has always been, my viewpoint.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

OK, one more time - the spirit is clear as well. Favour safety over all else. Happy?

comma - the IJ's call was correct. 

EOM

Hello Francis, it is "good morning" over here and so I have just read all your input. Sad to see you have swallowed the RO plan hook line and sinker.

1. The RO was right to give the warning.

2. They are an interested party. (For heavens sake even I am an "interested party" and should not be sending helpful messages to any of the boats, let alone to just one!)

3. The spirit of the rule is absolutely clear and outside help is only allowed in very limited circumstances, and not without risk of a penalty being applied.

4. When help is given where a crew is in danger (41 (a)) the assisted boat is open to protest.

5. Whether or not RO is an interested party is irrelevant with regard to a protest that they received safety related advice on which they acted, and the benefited massively from the assistance, by avoiding being wrecked.

Of course the RO should warn boats, just as they should have warned Vestas last time. Safety at sea is everyone's primary responsibility. It is a man with a pretty poor moral compass that risks life, especially other peoples', by worrying about something as trivial as a sporting penalty, and I trust a RO would undertsand where his primary responsibility lies.

As soon as Scally changed course Libby knew she had received outside assistance and in a world where sportsmanship and fair play have a meaning, Scallywag should have immediately retired. The suggestion that Scally be allowed to accept help because otherwise an RO would be inhibited from doing the right thing is simply ludicrous.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Diva39 said:

Why? I see you understand my point perfectly, Mr English teacher.

See if you can make yourself quite understandable in danish.

But....not even the danes understand Danish...! Well documented in this tv show.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

 The "interest" here clearly has to be more than just an interest in the event as a whole.

 

 

The rules do not say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that if I went back to the rule change proposal introducing this rule, I'm sure it would say  just that, but honestly, I couldn't be fucked.  The IJ seems to agree with me too.

Share this post


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

Hello Francis, it is "good morning" over here and so I have just read all your input. Sad to see you have swallowed the RO plan hook line and sinker.

Good afternoon :) 

I guess we agree to disagree. As I mentioned, disinterested party has usually a quite clear legal meaning. It isn't that we are interested in the race or not. It is that we have a some relationship or standing that will see us personally advantaged if the boat's result is changed. So, if I am a team member (of any team), have taken out a bet on the result, etc etc. The RO must be seen as having no interest in any one specific boat - that would mean they are biased in their administration of the race, and we simply have to assume this isn't the case. This isn't a matter of personal feeling about the rule, this is how the IJ is going to interpret the meaning of "disinterested."  The IJ is composed of sailing lawyers. You can be sure this is how they will interpret the rule. 

The problem with penalty is that the boat can't control the external advice. This would mean that the RO is in the position that (if they were actually biased) they could cause a boat to suffer a penalty just because they felt like it. All hell would break loose. You would see boats before the IJ in a matter of seconds protesting the RO and the media would have a field day with it. Imagine that it was Mapfre that was headed to the reef? And so DF gets some huge advantage because Mapfre got penalised because the RO decided to warn them. Excellent. A Chinese owned race authority just so happens to "warn" the rival boat to the Chinese entry, and thus wipe them out of contention. You would kill the race stone dead. Nobody would enter again, and the entire race's memory would become tainted. It would make the AC's little efforts look meek. As I wrote before, the converse becomes even more difficult. If there is a penalty that will be mandatorily imposed, the RC will hold off sending a warning, being fearful that it will be impossible to avoid controversy. They will be damned if they do and damned of they don't. If they don't send out a warning, and the boat hits the bricks, and someone dies - you now face the very real possibility of culpable homicide against the RC officer. There is no useful defence in holding back a warning that you knew you should deliver. 

There are no upsides to penalties. Sure, there is a slight bad taste, but sometimes you can't make everything perfect. 

I'm repeating my arguments here, and I sometimes feel a bit alone in this stance, and perhaps it is my background. But safety trumps everything. Never place any officials or competitors under any pressure to not act on a safety issue. Even if you end up with a competition rule that leaves a slight feeling of unfairness, you just wear it. Reading the RRS, IMHO the drafters were not stupid, and they were quite cognisant of the tensions here. And they chose what I believe is the only correct course in the way the rules are expressed.

Wind memories back to Vestas on the bricks. There were lots of questions about whether they could or should have been warned. I don't remember anyone suggesting that if they had been warned that they should have then been disqualified or should have retired. It was all about safety of the boat and how to avoid repeats.

Maybe Brunel knew where Skallywag were, maybe they should have called in a warning. Does Brunel get to think - OK we can warn them, and they get a DSQ, or we can not warn them and they hit the bricks? It becomes insane. If Brunel were in AIS of Skallywag I would be really concerned that they didn't call in a warning themselves. This then becomes about sportsmanship. IMHO no boat would ever not make the call if they saw the danger for another boat. That just isn't the way the sport is played. 

Where the RRS is still a bit behind is the nature of penalty. When the IJ has no option but a DSQ it becomes ridiculous. But that is a seperate discussion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

The rules do not say that.

No the rules don't define the meaning at all. It is a common legal meaning however. You will find it in most sports rules. Unless the rules explicitly define the use of the word as a term within the rules, it will have its accepted meaning. The accepted meaning is not always the way a common person unfamiliar with the the term will interpret it. That is just life.

I dislike doing this, but everyone might like to read this:  https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disinterested

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Good afternoon :) 

I guess we agree to disagree. As I mentioned, disinterested party has usually a quite clear legal meaning. It isn't that we are interested in the race or not. It is that we have a some relationship or standing that will see us personally advantaged if the boat's result is changed. So, if I am a team member (of any team), have taken out a bet on the result, etc etc. The RO must be seen as having no interest in any one specific boat - that would mean they are biased in their administration of the race, and we simply have to assume this isn't the case. This isn't a matter of personal feeling about the rule, this is how the IJ is going to interpret the meaning of "disinterested."  The IJ is composed of sailing lawyers. You can be sure this is how they will interpret the rule. 

The problem with penalty is that the boat can't control the external advice. This would mean that the RO is in the position that (if they were actually biased) they could cause a boat to suffer a penalty just because they felt like it. All hell would break loose. You would see boats before the IJ in a matter of seconds protesting the RO and the media would have a field day with it. Imagine that it was Mapfre that was headed to the reef? And so DF gets some huge advantage because Mapfre got penalised because the RO decided to warn them. Excellent. A Chinese owned race authority just so happens to "warn" the rival boat to the Chinese entry, and thus wipe them out of contention. You would kill the race stone dead. Nobody would enter again, and the entire race's memory would become tainted. It would make the AC's little efforts look meek. As I wrote before, the converse becomes even more difficult. If there is a penalty that will be mandatorily imposed, the RC will hold off sending a warning, being fearful that it will be impossible to avoid controversy. They will be damned if they do and damned of they don't. If they don't send out a warning, and the boat hits the bricks, and someone dies - you now face the very real possibility of culpable homicide against the RC officer. There is no useful defence in holding back a warning that you knew you should deliver. 

There are no upsides to penalties. Sure, there is a slight bad taste, but sometimes you can't make everything perfect. 

I'm repeating my arguments here, and I sometimes feel a bit alone in this stance, and perhaps it is my background. But safety trumps everything. Never place any officials or competitors under any pressure to not act on a safety issue. Even if you end up with a competition rule that leaves a slight feeling of unfairness, you just wear it. Reading the RRS, IMHO the drafters were not stupid, and they were quite cognisant of the tensions here. And they chose what I believe is the only correct course in the way the rules are expressed.

Wind memories back to Vestas on the bricks. There were lots of questions about whether they could or should have been warned. I don't remember anyone suggesting that if they had been warned that they should have then been disqualified or should have retired. It was all about safety of the boat and how to avoid repeats.

Maybe Brunel knew where Skallywag were, maybe they should have called in a warning. Does Brunel get to think - OK we can warn them, and they get a DSQ, or we can not warn them and they hit the bricks? It becomes insane. If Brunel were in AIS of Skallywag I would be really concerned that they didn't call in a warning themselves. This then becomes about sportsmanship. IMHO no boat would ever not make the call if they saw the danger for another boat. That just isn't the way the sport is played. 

Where the RRS is still a bit behind is the nature of penalty. When the IJ has no option but a DSQ it becomes ridiculous. But that is a seperate discussion.

no yes

Share this post


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

No the rules don't define the meaning at all. It is a common legal meaning however. You will find it in most sports rules. Unless the rules explicitly define the use of the word as a term within the rules, it will have its accepted meaning. The accepted meaning is not always the way a common person unfamiliar with the the term will interpret it. That is just life.

I dislike doing this, but everyone might like to read this:  https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disinterested

You are again focussing on the question  of "interest". Incidentally the term is used without qualification in the RRS which are supposed to be understandable by laymen, not just lawyers, and no one can argue the race officers are not interested in the race. However, whether or not the RO has an "interest" is not the issue on which a protest should be raised.
The real issue here is that the rules specifically provide for the case where a boat receives safety related assistance and gains an advantage from it. That is what has happened here. The advantage being that they remain afloat and completed the race, as opposed to foundering on a reef. A not inconsiderable advantage, especially since they came first due to the weather, not being entirely predictable, eventually favouring the course whch the RO led them by chance to follow!
The rule makers obviously have a different view from you and expressly allow a protest to be made in exactly these circumstances. 41 (a). The rule makers do not appear to agree with you that allowing a protest would predjudice safety. Quite the contrary. I suggest the decent thing to do in these circumstances is to retire. That way the boat which has received the assistance graciously admits its error and relieves its competitors from having to mount any protests. That is the spirit of fair play in sport.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

no yes

But I placed a bet on Scallywag not to win the leg...................did Tomlinson also bet? We will never know of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laymen can read the dictionary, and if they are at all confused about the meaning of the word disinterested they can educate themselves. The rules are not supposed to be understood by the ignorant. The OED definition makes it quite clear. Disinterested does not have the same meaning as uninterested. If they meant uninterested they would have used the word, or they would have defined the meaning. They did neither, so the common dictionary meaning of disinterested holds, and that meaning is clear.

Retiring is another matter.  The rules don't mandate such behaviour, and whether you think Witty should have retired or not is something to take up with him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You are again focussing on the question  of "interest". Incidentally the term is used without qualification in the RRS which are supposed to be understandable by laymen, not just lawyers, and no one can argue the race officers are not interested in the race. However, whether or not the RO has an "interest" is not the issue on which a protest should be raised.
 

No need to complicate this. With "interest", of course the idea is that the officer wanted Scallywag to do better than the other boats.

The jury has ruled anyway, and that's the end of it.  They didn't request assistance and hence shouldn't retire either. They didn't do anything, the RO did. The question wasn't what the boat did, but what the RO did.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

33 minutes ago, thetruth said:

But I placed a bet on Scallywag not to win the leg...................did Tomlinson also bet? We will never know of course

of course          

what??

go the giant red dong

Share this post


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

But I placed a bet on Scallywag not to win the leg...................did Tomlinson also bet? We will never know of course

You are thus an interested person. If Tomlinson put a bet on any boat he would be in deep conflict of interest trouble. In most places that would be grounds for instant dismissal.

Note the phrase conflict of interest.  I wonder what the word interest means here?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

They didn't do anything,...

I think I noticed a wee course alteration, and they just happened to win which is rather better a result than ending up on a reef.

But you think the assisatnce from the RO had nothing to do with any of that?

Different planets!

Share this post


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

You are thus an interested person. If Tomlinson put a bet on any boat he would be in deep conflict of interest trouble. In most places that would be grounds for instant dismissal.

Note the phrase conflict of interest.  I wonder what the word interest means here?

Well if he did bet there would clearly be a conflict but if he denied betting then it would not be disinterested

Share this post


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

Quite the contrary. I suggest the decent thing to do in these circumstances is to retire. That way the boat which has received the assistance graciously admits its error and relieves its competitors from having to mount any protests. That is the spirit of fair play in sport.

some where i recall the words self policing when it comes to yacht racing and fair play ?

Share this post


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

I think I noticed a wee course alteration, and they just happened to win which is rather better a result than ending up on a reef.

But you think the assisatnce from the RO had nothing to do with any of that?

Different planets!

Yes, they happened to win. Due to circumstances that happened later on. I know you might think that the RO has magical powers, but this is takin it a bit too far ;) 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBG, 

your forget that the organisers are all-powerful and all-knowing.  The next thing they did was to call "dial - a-cloud" and put $10,000 on with the Pakistani bookmakers. 

Sure thing, done deal.

 

Staysail, the reference to a protest in 41(a) is not saying that you can only protest 41(a). It is saying that a the penalty under 41(a) does not need to be the default penalty of a DSQ. it can be something less.

No wonder you are having trouble with the  meaning of "disinterested"  B)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 3to1 said:

hey, where does the fleet voyage to from here?

They do have a volvooceanrace.com you know, where you can look at the route.... ;)

They voyage to Auckland. There's a separate thread for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 3to1 said:

^^ thanks for the reply, but it was sarcasm.

You didn't use the sarcasm font! :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something stupid about referencing RRS with a corporate event with OD floating billboards. 

Let alone commenting on people who take it seriously.

Share this post


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

No the rules don't define the meaning at all. It is a common legal meaning however. You will find it in most sports rules. Unless the rules explicitly define the use of the word as a term within the rules, it will have its accepted meaning. The accepted meaning is not always the way a common person unfamiliar with the the term will interpret it. That is just life.

I dislike doing this, but everyone might like to read this:  https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disinterested

FV, this is a reference you might need in future discourse:

VOR SI's Amendment 4, 4.5
"The official language for all Race matters shall be English. In the event of conflict with any translation, the English version shall prevail. The meaning of any word not defined in any of the Rules shall be by referenced to the Oxford English Dictionary (2009) – CD Rom Version 4.0 (Oxford University Press 2009)."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can't believe none of you guys have read the SI's and noticed that there were only two boats eligible for a finishing position in the round the hong kong race - all this ranting about rules and no one bothers to read the rules

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: are all of the VOR teams provided the same charts (paper, software) and navigational equipment (I assume yes as to that as they are one design and cannot be altered in any way, including prospectively to avoid possible problems, as Mapre painfully learned during the last race)? 

Share this post


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

Staysail, the reference to a protest in 41(a) is not saying that you can only protest 41(a). It is saying that a the penalty under 41(a) does not need to be the default penalty of a DSQ. it can be something less.

No wonder you are having trouble with the  meaning of "disinterested"  B)

 

I think it is you and not me that fails to comprehend the main issue here. Extracts from RRS being as follows,

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.

 

Relevant extract from Rule 41.
A boat shall not receive help from any outside source, except
(a) help for a crew member who is ill, injured or in danger;

However, a boat that gains a significant advantage in the race from
help received under rule 41(a) may be protested and penalized; any
penalty may be less than disqualification.

The issue of a "disinterested" or "interested"  is irrelevant as to whether rule 49 allows another boat or the race organiser to protest a boat which receives help which is expressly allowed by 41 (a). It is clear that the help offered was given to keep Scallywag out of danger. Not for any other purpose. It does not matter one jot whether the party giving help under 41 (a) is disinterested or not. Scallywag gained a significant advantage in the race from the help given. The "help" prevented it from foundering. Scallywag is therefore open to protest. I have never said they should be DSQ, as a lesser penalty could be imposed. My personal view however is that under the BASIC PRINCIPLES of the Rules, the sportsmanlike thing for them to have done was retire because it is unsporting to continue when you know you have accepted help which has saved you from danger and incidentally given you an advantage over the others. By doing so you free your competitors from having to consider protesting you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you really trying this say this is Rule 41(a) event?

Long stretch that.  They received unsolicited information about a reef that they may or may not have been going to hit.  Falls under 41(d) not (a).

41(a) is about a crew member in danger, such as a MOB incident, not someone on a boat that may or may not hit or come close to a submerged feature that may or may not be in that area and which may or may not result in damage to the yacht or potentially injury to a crew member, based on observations about the likely continued track of a yacht as observed by GPS from the other side of the world.

Where is the evidence (as opposed to supposition) that any crew member was "in danger"?  Absent that,  rule 41(a) has no relevance.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

BASIC PRINCIPLES
SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES

not quite self policing but close enough indeed .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2018 at 9:48 AM, cremedelameme said:

For those of us unfamiliar with Add. Q and other umpired racing: the red flag is used for a protest only in an incident involving your own boat and a breach of Part 2 (except Rule 14 in the event of damage or injury), or an alleged breach of Rule 31 or Rule 42, it gets removed as soon as the umpires signal a decision. Other intents to protest are lodged with the race committee at the finish before the removal of flag B.

But I've never heard of a Level 2 either.

We can't all be playing the same game if we don't know the rules. Patiently explaining them to sailors who are unaware of the rules helps keep the sport self policing and fair. Since you seem to be in the know it would be great if you could enlighten those of us who are not, even if there was no protest filed.

Creme, to give you a response on this -  Warning, it's boring.
I had some time and was looking for the specifics to help provide facts (because everyone likes facts) but I could not find the exact quotations buried away in the mountains of information.  However, there are references that help explain some of it and then I'll give you what I know to help round that off.  

My understanding was - During the ATIR In-Port race, MAPF flying the B flag from the rear stay was a Level 2 protest (the correct term to be referenced may be "procedure rule"), as opposed to a RRS violation intended for the on-water jury, which would involve flying their manual B flag seeking an immediate decision (AddQ).

Refer VOR NOR, Amendment 10, Section 11 - Guests Onboard, 11.13 & 11.15
"11.13 During In-Port races, guests shall not take part in the sailing of the Boat, nor act to improve its performance in any way except that the PIC(sea) may allow a guest to helm the Boat on the last leg of the In-Port Race."
"11.15 During an In-Port race guests shall remain aft of the helm."

One of the peculiarities of the boats racing in HKG, versus anywhere else in the world, is the fact that the HK Marine Dept mandated that when the boats are in-port and underway a PVOL1 licence holder is required to be aboard at all times, acting as a "Pilot", and not classed as a "Guest". PVOL2 requirements also applied to all support boats.  That meant every boat had an extra headcount onboard.  For the in-port races, they also carried an extra 3 guests (per 11.12).  These 3 guests are required to remain behind the helm (11.15), though I understand they may also have been loosely permitted to move forward, if required.  However, the PVOL person was allowed to go further forward as they are not counted as a "guest".  During the ATIR In-port race, conditions were very light at times, especially at the start, and standard practice calls for as much weight onboard to be moved forward and often to leeward.  I understand the protest was related to such an incident, where guests and/or pilot may have moved their weight to where it should not have been that may have benefit the sailing dynamics of the boat (11.13), which may or may not have happened. MAPF might have wanted to protest against the other boat in case it mattered at the end of the day, but decided to pass at the conclusion of the race and bask in their win instead.  If it were current and visible at that point in time, maybe they could use the normal on-water protest channel if a jury boat were present?  If it were reported after the fact by crew, it's possible they just go with the B flag on the rear stay and seek a ruling post-race.    


For reference, an PVOL1 licence is required for any vessel over 15m in HK waters (and a rigmarole to get, hence not that common).  PVOL2 is for craft less than 15m.  There's is no requirement that the PVOL be the PIC, Skipper, Helm etc., just to be present on the vessel.  Never mind the fact that these visiting skippers are some of the most experienced seamen in the world, except under HKG law, largely due to local conditions of navigational issues, exclusion zones, TSS's, Fairways, Speed limit sectors, etc. etc.  So effectively, a skipper is allowed to sail into and out of the HK territory but not allowed to sail within or around the territory whilst in port unless having the applicable licence.  This applies to any visiting vessel.  Strange but true.  I believe this rule also exists in some other countries (Singapore springs to mind).    

It was a different protest signal to what you were expecting to see.  Clearly MAPF/Xabi knew the drill.  You'll likely never hear of this rule violation again.  I hope that helps your understanding of the incident.  As I said, it matters little after the fact as no protest was followed through.

Caveat - I stand to be corrected.  

Share this post


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

My personal view however is that under the BASIC PRINCIPLES of the Rules, the sportsmanlike thing for them to have done was retire because it is unsporting to continue when you know you have accepted help which has saved you from danger and incidentally given you an advantage over the others. By doing so you free your competitors from having to consider protesting you.

I find your interpretation of "sportsmanship" very, very strange.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, ColinG said:

Are you really trying this say this is Rule 41(a) event?

Long stretch that.  They received unsolicited information about a reef that they may or may not have been going to hit.  Falls under 41(d) not (a).

41(a) is about a crew member in danger, such as a MOB incident, not someone on a boat that may or may not hit or come close to a submerged feature that may or may not be in that area and which may or may not result in damage to the yacht or potentially injury to a crew member, based on observations about the likely continued track of a yacht as observed by GPS from the other side of the world.

Where is the evidence (as opposed to supposition) that any crew member was "in danger"?  Absent that,  rule 41(a) has no relevance.

 

Come off it! They were standing into danger. No other possible reason for the RO to warn them.

Let me know if you can dream one up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

can't believe none of you guys have read the SI's and noticed that there were only two boats eligible for a finishing position in the round the hong kong race - all this ranting about rules and no one bothers to read the rules

Why?

Share this post


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

can't believe none of you guys have read the SI's and noticed that there were only two boats eligible for a finishing position in the round the hong kong race - all this ranting about rules and no one bothers to read the rules

On what basis?

Share this post


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

I find your interpretation of "sportsmanship" very, very strange.

Looks like I set the bar higher than you. That's all. No hard feelings.

I did say it was my personal view.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sorry, well inside the limit, even the last boat to finish was too.

 

read the general SI's again - 16.2 - not 16.1 that was changed to 1600

Share this post


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

Come off it! They were standing into danger. No other possible reason for the RO to warn them.

Let me know if you can dream one up.

Look mate,

You obviously have a significant burr up your arse.  It's like trying to reason with Donald Trump.  Facts, logic and common sense seem to have no place in your world view.   I'm done.  

Share this post


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

Looks like I set the bar higher than you. That's all. No hard feelings.

I did say it was my personal view.

:)  I my view, "unsportsmanlike" is more of an incident where you knowingly break a rule. Scallywag didn't do anything. Everybody's happy that another grounding was avoided.

And when everybody's happy, that tells me that nobody did anything unsportsmanlike.

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

 

read the general SI's again - 16.2 - not 16.1 that was changed to 1600

It helps to read the amendments.  Specifically Amendment 10, dated 26th Jan.

"Hong Kong In-Port Race Part 2 Attachment to General S.I.s Around Hong Kong Island
4. TIME LIMIT
Boats failing to finish by 16:00h on 28th January will be recorded as DNF. This changes SI 16.1"

The RO shortened course. 
Winner MAPF @ ~1500
Last TTOP @ ~1550 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It helps to read the amendments.  Specifically Amendment 10, dated 26th Jan.

"Hong Kong In-Port Race Part 2 Attachment to General S.I.s Around Hong Kong Island
4. TIME LIMIT
Boats failing to finish by 16:00h on 28th January will be recorded as DNF. This changes SI 16.1"

The RO shortened course. 
Winner MAPF @ ~1500
Last TTOP @ ~1550 

helps to read the parent document 

16. TIME LIMITS

16.1 For an In-Port Race 90 minutes

16.2 For a Pro-Am or In-Port Race a Boat finishing more than 15 minutes after the first finisher shall be scored DNF.

only 16.1 was amended by the amendment

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

helps to read the parent document 

16. TIME LIMITS

16.1 For an In-Port Race 90 minutes

16.2 For a Pro-Am or In-Port Race a Boat finishing more than 15 minutes after the first finisher shall be scored DNF.

only 16.1 was amended by the amendment

Ha, yes, that is true. However, the amendment referenced a specific time on a specific date, which satisfied the ATIR.  Agreed that it might have read better if the amendment referenced a change to "16.2" also.       

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ha, yes, that is true. However, the amendment referenced a specific time on a specific date, which satisfied the ATIR.  Agreed that it might have read better if the amendment referenced a change to "16.2" also.       

so are you suggesting that 16.2 no longer has any relevance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a question for the RO to satisfy. 
There may be a conflict if you interpret it that way.  However, the amendment is very clear on date and time limit for that specific race, so I don't see any conflict.   Though my answer is about as relevant as yesterday's lunch. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That's a question for the RO to satisfy. 
There may be a conflict if you interpret it that way.  However, the amendment is very clear on date and time limit for that specific race, so I don't see any conflict.   Though my answer is about as relevant as yesterday's lunch. 

I do agree with your final statement

Share this post


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

Looks like I set the bar higher than you. That's all. No hard feelings.

I did say it was my personal view.

 

Staysail, sportsmanship is not about setting your own bar.

The bar is already set on the first pages in the RRS, descriped as:

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

Scallywag did not break any rule, they did not gain a significant advantage by reacting on the warning, and the RC send the warning because of the risk of injuries - so why the heck should they take a penalty or retire?

Whether you would retired for not breaking a rule, is up to you, but I don't think any of your competitors would count this as sportsmanship!

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I interpret "disinterested" as meaning there is no vested interest in any one team's outcome.  RC is neutral as opposed to a team onshore navigator, for example, who has a vested interest in a single team's outcome.

It's a stretch to think they assisted in Scally's win because it was their home port. I think they would have taken this precaution with any boat as they should have.

The rules seem vague.  They should probably include a penalty for being stupid and requiring RC intervention - especially after Vestas last time.

They still had to round the Solomon's together with the fleet before any "left turn" taken came about.

 

We'd all be fucked.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

:)  I my view, "unsportsmanlike" is more of an incident where you knowingly break a rule. Scallywag didn't do anything. Everybody's happy that another grounding was avoided.

And when everybody's happy, that tells me that nobody did anything unsportsmanlike.

Your definition of everybody needs refinement, because I know plenty of people who are not happy about the fact a boat received this assistance and didn’t withdraw. Those would be spectators, who are the lifeblood of this race, and those people are now more rapidly losing interest in the race and are less inclined to buy a Volvo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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


The real issue here is that the rules specifically provide for the case where a boat solicits receives safety related assistance and gains an advantage from it. 

Fixed.  You have some rule real reading issues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Your definition of everybody needs refinement, because I know plenty of people who are not happy about the fact a boat received this assistance and didn’t withdraw. Those would be spectators, who are the lifeblood of this race, and those people are now more rapidly losing interest in the race and are less inclined to buy a Volvo.

Your friends list need refinement.

A message to avoid an accident is not the same as "assistance", and the jury has ruled. If the people you know prefer that boats hits reefs, then I suggest you find yourself some better friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be very surprised if the wording of the email had not been prepared a long time ago, for just such an occasion, with the advice of some rules guru specifically so that it does not contravene any of RRS 41. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunseeker,

Please get with it...

SHKS received unsolicited information from the race organisers, when they were a substantial navigable distance away from a badly charted potential obstacle.

Case over.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Fixed.  You have some rule real reading issues.

Read the rules yourself Clean! Although maybe you face comprehension issues, not just reading ones.

41 (a) is what it was really about, not (d).

Share this post


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

The real issue here is that the rules specifically provide for the case where a boat receives safety related assistance and gains an advantage from it.

It seems like there is a wide spread misunderstanding of what the term "gains a significant advantage" means.

It is not meant as an advantage, compared to the disadvantage of hitting the reef.

"Gaining advantage" is only about whether you gain a position in the fleet, reduce the distance to the boats ahead, or increased your lead to the boats behind, as a direct result of the help.

In this case, there was no advantage gained, as the distance to the boats ahead was increased by 50 nm!

And what happens after this, including winning the leg, has nothing to do with "gaining advantage" of the help as well!

Share this post


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

A message to avoid an accident is not the same as "assistance", and the jury has ruled.

Of course it is! exactly as provided for in 41 (a), and the IJ for the VOR has a history of some pretty quaint judgements IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now in Guangzhou. According to the car thermometer the temperature is 8 degrees and the guys as setting off from Hong Kong in a couple of hours.

Ironically in what appears to be a strong East Wind (Dong Feng).

Looks like they would have been able to reach all the way up the Pearl River with this breeze.

Share this post


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

Read the rules yourself Clean! Although maybe you face comprehension issues, not just reading ones.

41 (a) is what it was really about, not (d).

Agreed re which rule: preventing a vessel "standing into danger" would certainly appear to fall under (a) as well as (d)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, staysail said:
27 minutes ago, NORBowGirl said:

A message to avoid an accident is not the same as "assistance", and the jury has ruled.

Of course it is!

It is descriped in the rules as "outside help" - and so it is.

And as rule 41 d) descripes, and as the IJ has ruled, it has no consequenses of penalties, because there was no advantage gained, and the warning was due to avoid a danger.

Share this post


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

Read what I wrote. Para one - all about the interpretation of "disinterested".  Para two, all about how the rules need to manage safety as a priority. Final line, two components, first component, spirit of disinterested, second component spirit of the rules, summary - IJ got it right.

I find it extremely difficult to see how it is possible to interpret what I wrote in any other way. Somehow you are desperately trying to imbue it with some other meaning. 

You are carrying on that there should be a penalty, and somehow have the bit between your teeth that this is the one true way. I totally disagree. Got that? I argue that there should on no account be a penalty, and the spirit of the rules - that is the grandfather clause that safety trumps all else, means that the rules should never reflect a situation where to hold onto a racing advantage that there should ever be an incentive - for anyone - to breach clear safety issues. I explained at length later what sort of issues these might be. You might disagree, but that is your prerogative. But don't come all over claiming I am backtracking or misrepresenting what I said. If there is anything that contradicts this viewpoint it is my fault for not being clear enough. You are welcome to point out where I have been less than clear on this, but do try to stay on page, and realise that this is, and has always been, my viewpoint.

Francis I read and comprehend well please be assured. Never been an interpretation problem my end on what you go to print on. 

However the above is the first time you have propery explained your complete viewpoint, which seems to be founded solely  on the terms "disinterested" .Your own words seem to support that lack of explanation to your original post that I have been interogating you over, where you say;

8 hours ago, Francis Vaughan said:

If there is anything that contradicts this viewpoint it is my fault for not being clear enough.

However as for no penalty IMHO I think you are clearly wrong and if it was tested by a competitor protest (an interested party but which is pretty hard protesting a secret) as opposed to the RC looking for a ruling precedent as they did, I believe you are fundanentally wrong with your argument and I believe I would be proven correct, albeit that is never going to happen now and hypothetical. 

That said with your reply above you at least now seem to understand the difference  between simply stating a viewpoint and making an arguement for it. Big difference. That is much appreciated, so thank you.

So to explain my viewpoint on a penalty being warranted as opposed yours that no penalty should apply.

 First I have to make these six (6)  opinions clear so you don't wander off on a tangent speaking Olde English  as you normaly do, that is if you feel compelled to reply at all.

1. Under the circumstances the RC had no option but to contact Scallyskirts concerned that they were about to plough a trench through a reef. That is safety as you correctly point out. It was also vessel specific message, not a all vessels broadcast as all vessels were past the reef save Brunel who were on line to clear it. See attached pic.  

2. Scallyskirts response was imediately to go west with negative VMG in terms of rounding the SI Mark ahead to detour around the reef. Any argument this manouve was planned is horseshit.

3. Did that detour put Scallylegs further out the back to the extent they then capitalised upon it further up the track and sailed into different and unforecast weather and win the leg? Yes it did and that is a fact. Has it any bearing on this issue, no it doesn't in my opinion.

4. I don't begrudge Scallyskirts their win, that is yacht racing. Do I have anything against Scallylegs? No I dont. They have Ozis and a Dutch girl on board so my favourite combination. Furthermore I think I have placed up on this thread more Scallylinks than any other poster.

5. The simple foundations of this sport are prepare and execute well and you will be rewarded, save for things outside your control and do so having regard to the rules and the concepts of sportsmanship and fair play.

6. This sport is largely conducted by people with the highest of principals and quite frankly missing in many others. A case in point specific to this race. 

In the 2011/12 edition Richard Mason and Jared Henderson on Sanya were honoured by the RO for their bravery to make it safe after the boat suffered rigging damage near Madagascar onroute to a freighter/camel jockey land. 

However nearly all other sailing teams said those actions were only necessary due skipper and navigator  that drove the boat straight into a tropical storm. 

Andrew Cape, navigator on Telefonica, who is ironically the Navigator on Brunel just ahead of Scallylegs and who just cleared that reef extremity (not on C Charts at 160 35 East), walked out of that prize-giving in protest with the support of many including many people in this race like Nicho skipper of Camper at the time.

So cut to the chase.

My argument behind my opinion that a penalty should apply and which I have already made in my posts to date, but you continue to ignore in favour of blowing your own trumpet are as follows:

Scally fucked up big time in every aspect from proper preparation to execution in the navigational arena. I have already stated Libby's late inclusion may have contributed to the former.

If it wasn't for the RC's warning a potential catostrofuck could have occurred that would put sailing and more particularly this RTW yacht racing variety back a decade or more, particularly in the sponsor arena. Ask Vestas what they think about this subject.

The net outcome is you believe there should be no points penalty based on wording interpretation?

Well sorry, but you and the RO of this race are fuckin  dilussional mate.

And if Witt had any balls and honour he would have volunteered a leg points shave but still kept first place. That would have kept most people happy.

 

5a70b98992b82_BancdeLandsdowne.thumb.jpg.676b4976d5e3400b5e627364a52aac7d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see Volvo's latest Driver Assist safety features being incorporated into the VOR, as well as their excellent automobiles. Proximity Warning, Lane Assist and multiple Airbags might be useful too. It's not a very big leap to 'Driverless' from here.

Better consider dropping the descriptor, "Life at the extreme" now though. It's starting to lack a certain verisimilitude.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites