• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

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

Recommended Posts

The Sydney-Hobart protest: was the WOXI penalty fair? David Salter, who has been racing in the Sydney-to-Hobart since 1965, reflects on the wider implications of this year’s controversial protest decision.

The fair, proportionate and consistent application of penalties continues to be one of the most problematic areas of our sport.

When yacht racing began to organize itself more than 200 years ago the individual clubs made their own rules and resisted a common code. One of the most acrimonious of all protests was reported in the 1850s by Hunt’s Yachting Magazine in the UK and centred on – guess what – a protest over “water to tack”. Sound familiar?

The general format of racing rules and sailing instructions we recognize today weren’t adopted until 1876, and only after the Prince of Wales bashed some heads together at Commodore level and convinced all the “Royal” clubs to adopt an agreed set of rules.

Although the British clubs tended to set the model for the regulation of racing, many of the “when boats meet” principles we still abide by were adapted from a very logical list of standards laid out in the early 1900s by the New York Yacht Club. Of those, the relevant section for us here was:

“A yacht may not tack so as to involve risk of collision with another yacht before filling on her new tack, nor as to involve risk of collision....”

Interestingly, the mechanism of penalties (penalty turns for unintentional fouls) is a relatively modern phenomenon. That concept was not formally recognised until introduced by the IYRU in 1973 (sadly, too late to help Gretel II in its infamous 1970 America’s Cup start-line dispute with Intrepid).

But there are problems with penalties when that corrective is taken beyond its originally intended – and narrow – application to one-design and match racing.

What are the relative weights of an on-water infraction as opposed to some technical breach? To what extent should a penalty be punitive as well as an attempt to expunge any advantage the boat at fault may have obtained? Should penalties be primarily a system to restore fairness in the final results, or should they act more as deterrents to discourage careless or unscrupulous racing?

Our interest here is not so much in the rights or wrongs of the specific incident involving WOXI and Comanche. There is no doubt from the video evidence that WOXI was at fault. The International Jury convened in Hobart after the two yachts finished had no trouble coming to that finding.

The real point at issue now is whether the penalty they were then empowered by the Sailing Instructions to impose was fair to all yachts in the fleet.

As the organising authority of the Sydney-Hobart, the Cruising Yacht Club of Australia is free to delete, replace or amend any of the Racing Rules of Sailing as it believes them to be relevant to that specific event. Thus, in direct relation to the WOXI/Comanche incident, their 2017 Sailing Instructions included this:   

  1. ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES

(Amends RRS 44, 63.1 and 64)

20.1  BEFORE CLEARING TURNING MARKS Z/Y.

    1. (a)  For an infringement of Part 2 of the RRS that occurs after the Preparatory Signal and prior to the boat clearing the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y), the Two Turns Penalty under RRS 44.2 shall apply.
    2. (b)  A boat which is found after a protest hearing to have infringed a rule of Part 2 of the RRS after the Preparatory Signal and prior to the boat clearing the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y), shall receive a time penalty of not less than 5 minutes added to the boat’s elapsed time.

In other words, Wild Oats XI could have exonerated itself by taking a 2-turn penalty at the first safe and reasonable opportunity. They declined to do so. Comanche protested and the jury then found against them and imposed a 1-hour penalty.

That penalty was equivalent to around 3.5% of their elapsed time and only relegated them from 1st to 2nd place in the line honours division. While it is true that at the ego-driven supermaxi end of the fleet 2nd place is no better than last, the jury’s time penalty decision prompted immediate controversy.  

Why? Because there were other penalty clauses in the Sailing Instructions for the 2017 Hobart race, and they adopt different ways of determining those penalties. Here they are:

20.2  AFTER CLEARING TURNING MARK Z/Y.

    1. (a)  After a boat has cleared the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y), the Scoring Penalties of RRS 44.3 shall apply for an infringement of Part 2 of the RRS or these SIs.
    2. (b)  A boat which is found after a protest hearing to have infringed Part 2 of the RRS after clearing the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y) shall receive as a minimum a scoring penalty of 30%.
    3. (c)  A boat which fails to meet the requirements of SI 26 (Declarations) shall receive a scoring penalty of 20% applied by the Race Committee without a hearing (Amends RRS 63.1).

20.5  All penalties, unless otherwise specified, shall be computed as a percentage of the number of entries to the nearest whole number (rounding .5 upwards) in each Handicap Category or Division.

What does all that mean in practice?

Well, under 20.2 (b), had the WOXI/Comanche incident happened just a few minutes later – after both yachts had passed the seamark – then Wild Oats would have been penalized 30% of entrants in its division, not one hour. In IRC, they would have then finished in 44th place – a whopping 23 rungs lower than their actual handicap place, and 21 hours later on corrected time.   

More pertinently for this discussion, in the case of a yacht whose skipper has a few too many beers after the race and lodges their Declaration a minute later than 6 hours after finishing, they will be penalised 20% of the number of entrants (not finishers) in their division. So, a boat that sailed entirely by the rules and came, say, 2nd in a division of 50 entrants will be booted down to 12th place – for late paperwork.

And this is not just obscure, theoretical stuff. Automatic 20% scoring penalties for late Declarations were imposed by the Sydney-Hobart Race Director this year and last – and there is no hearing process or right of appeal.

To my mind this is hardly fair. Late entry to any major race such as the Sydney-Hobart always involves an additional processing fee. Maybe late declarations should attract a similar fine.

But the more troubling issue is one of apples-to-apples equivalence.

In a normal regatta context, WOXI would have been disqualified after the jury found she had tacked in Comanche’s water. Protests are resolved on that basis every week at yacht clubs around the world, and skippers accept their DSQs as fair and appropriate punishment.

Instead, under the CYCA rules for the Sydney-Hobart, Wild Oats XI’s reckless on-water breach of the racing rules could have been penalised as little as 5 minutes (which, by the way, is only slightly more time than it would have taken them to do two penalty turns).

Meanwhile, just for lodging a late (and largely meaningless) post-race Declaration, any other yacht was – without exception or right of appeal – penalised 20% of places in their division. In effect, they received a harsh on-water penalty for sloppy paperwork that had no bearing on the race itself.

By contrast, Wild Oats XI had an hour added to their elapsed time for a significant rule breach that could have cost lives.

There must be a better way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Editor said:

As the organising authority of the Sydney-Hobart, the Cruising Yacht Club of Australia is free to delete, replace or amend any of the Racing Rules of Sailing as it believes them to be relevant to that specific event.

An interesting read - you obviously put some time and thought into this or should I say David Salter has.

Picking you up on your statement about changing the RRS. An OA is not free to change any of the RRS - see Part 7 of the RRS particularly 85 and 86.

For those interested Mark Rushall has written an informative history of the RRS.

Click on the link then scroll down to download.

Racing rules – the history

Read about the full background to the modern day racing rules of sailing.

https://www.rushallsailing.com/mark-rushall/sailboat-racing-rules-expert/

Plenty of other worthwhile content on this website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conventional argument about penalties for late declarations is that they are about safety, not bureaucracy - if someone doesn't check in then there needs to be a search started. Not that I agree with such policies. Copped a few DSQs myself over the years.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stop using the front page as an opinions column and go back to sharing sailing news, cool videos, sexy photos of boats, and generally stop giving a soapbox to loudmouth editorial authors like Brian Hancock. 

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah this is on the front page. In which case please make a correction re an OA's ability to change all / any of the RRS.

In fact maybe you should put my post #2 underneath or above it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an utter nonsense is this David !!

" a significant rule breach that could have cost lives "  ????

Are you kidding me ????

Sure, Mark Richards tacked a little late. But didn't anyone see the (match racing) move executed by Jimmy Spithill ? He bore down a bit on WO XI and luffed to avoid a collision and to make sure WO XI was penalized. Check the video. Comanche wasn't even pinching when WO XI finished her tack. The jib was still fully pressured.   Mark Richards should have known better and have done his 720 but if anyone put "lives at risk" it was James Spithill.

But the fact is that he didn't.  He knew exactly what he was doing and there was no risk at all.

"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen"!

I see this all the time in regatta's and it bothers me. People who lack the ability to time speed and distance and stuff like that and freak out when other boats come to close for their comfort.

Again, WO XI took a risk, Spithill nailed them and Richards should have taken his medicine (720) but the notion that there was any risk of damage or people could have lost their lives is complete nonsense.

 

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree Janbart. Too much of this sensationalist comment leads to too much PC. But David's article is right on. If there's no significant penalty then rules aren't worth the paper they are written on. That's relevant rules on the racetrack and not procedural rules. How much trouble is it for organisers to call by a boat and remind them about a declaration ,email them or phone them. After all they zealously collect all this info on the entry form along with the fee.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the root of the matter on how the jury ruled is that two rules were broken, one being more severe than the other. I think the majority of people who know the rules can overwhelming agree that WO tacked too close fouling Comanche, by looking at the video it was pretty flagrant and not much there to give doubt. This happens in racing all the time and it's not a major deal when the skipper at fault clears himself and absolves his boat of penalty by doing their turns without any more penalty to be given and continues on but when the skipper decides to not acknowledge fault is when he enters himself into the territory of penalty two which can accrue much larger punishment when found at fault. We as skippers all know this. Sailboat racing rules are to pretty much based on having to be self regulated to keep oneself honest and keep the racing true.

 

When a skipper decides not to self regulate his own faults he then forces a ruling committee to step in and in sailboat racing you become the mercy of them and their harsh penalties regardless if your a faster boat or not. Experienced skippers know this and this is exactly what happened to WO.

 

I know the WO cheerleaders are crying foul about what they think is severe but at looking modern history of sailboat racing, WO got off very easy based on the very rules published and well known by the WO skipper and it's crew, they made there decision at that very moment and rolled the dice. Gold medals and many world championships have been lost by the very same decision that the WO skipper made.

It's pretty sad to read people calling bullshit and outrage because of there favoritism. Unfortunately this is exact reason why these rules were created in the first place because people can't act honestly when they have self interest.  

  • Like 4
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should have been DSQ by the jury. They had the option of doing a simple 720, when they declined that option and went to a jury it should have been "No foul" or "DSQ" based on the evidence presented.

  • Like 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

What an utter nonsense is this David !!

" a significant rule breach that could have cost lives "  ????

Are you kidding me ????

Sure, Mark Richards tacked a little late. But didn't anyone see the (match racing) move executed by Jimmy Spithill ? He bore down a bit on WO XI and luffed to avoid a collision and to make sure WO XI was penalized. Check the video. Comanche wasn't even pinching when WO XI finished her tack. The jib was still fully pressured.   Mark Richards should have known better and have done his 720 but if anyone put "lives at risk" it was James Spithill.

But the fact is that he didn't.  He knew exactly what he was doing and there was no risk at all.

"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen"!

I see this all the time in regatta's and it bothers me. People who lack the ability to time speed and distance and stuff like that and freak out when other boats come to close for their comfort.

Again, WO XI took a risk, Spithill nailed them and Richards should have taken his medicine (720) but the notion that there was any risk of damage or people could have lost their lives is complete nonsense.

 

 

 

Not a match racing move. Very standard in fleet racing, though you obviously don't see it much with super maxis. Don't confuse Spithill and Comanche playing within their rights as allowed by the rules with WOXI pushing it too hard with very little rights as the give way boat. This was not Spithill's creation. Any decent helmsman in his shoes at that moment would have done the same move. Try to entice the port tack boat to tack early or start to duck early. Nothing to do with match racing at all.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your article asks the question: "Was the penalty fair?" However, you don't give us a straight answer. You seem to indicate that taking the win away from Wild Oats was not enough of a penalty, and, after much ado, you make the statement: "There must be a better way..."

Let's think about equity shall we?

Wild Oats dumped ALL OVER Comanche, and, as they should, Comanche protected her boat and crew and obeyed Rule 14. Well done Comanche. After that, Wild Oats not only sailed better, but left Comanche in the dust. What was the penalty? Wild Oats got her podium taken away, and Comanche was awarded for following the rules. As it should be. Wild Oats didn't offend any other boat. She didn't take anyone else's water. So why on earth should some horizon job benefit from an offense that was not given? In the end, the decision of the panel, I think, was the equitable one.

All the blather about positions and 6 hours to file paperwork, and blah blah blah doesn't matter. 

I, for one, am pleased that, for what seems like an eternity, a judging panel actually rewarded someone who obeyed Rule 14 and didn't try to claim that the avoidance maneuver wasn't needed (I hate that). 

Well done to all who stepped to the challenge. I can't wait to watch these two go at it again.
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "not less than 5 minutes" change was about the minimising penalties for minor or unavoidable incidents within the tight confines of the harbour, such as in a past race where, on a very crowded startline, a crew member reached out to fend off another vessel (in the 1980s? can't find a link) and this cost his yacht an additional 30% time and race victory. It should not apply to yachts in clear water that have full steerage and room to keep clear, such as in this incident.

The author is correct that the appropriate penalty for WOXI would have been 30%.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, sailronin said:

Should have been DSQ by the jury. They had the option of doing a simple 720, when they declined that option and went to a jury it should have been "No foul" or "DSQ" based on the evidence presented.

+1000

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The Sydney-Hobart protest: was the WOXI penalty fair? David Salter, who has been racing in the Sydney-to-Hobart since 1965, reflects on the wider implications of this year’s controversial protest decision.

The fair, proportionate and consistent application of penalties continues to be one of the most problematic areas of our sport.

When yacht racing began to organize itself more than 200 years ago the individual clubs made their own rules and resisted a common code. One of the most acrimonious of all protests was reported in the 1850s by Hunt’s Yachting Magazine in the UK and centred on – guess what – a protest over “water to tack”. Sound familiar?

The general format of racing rules and sailing instructions we recognize today weren’t adopted until 1876, and only after the Prince of Wales bashed some heads together at Commodore level and convinced all the “Royal” clubs to adopt an agreed set of rules.

Although the British clubs tended to set the model for the regulation of racing, many of the “when boats meet” principles we still abide by were adapted from a very logical list of standards laid out in the early 1900s by the New York Yacht Club. Of those, the relevant section for us here was:

“A yacht may not tack so as to involve risk of collision with another yacht before filling on her new tack, nor as to involve risk of collision....”

Interestingly, the mechanism of penalties (penalty turns for unintentional fouls) is a relatively modern phenomenon. That concept was not formally recognised until introduced by the IYRU in 1973 (sadly, too late to help Gretel II in its infamous 1970 America’s Cup start-line dispute with Intrepid).

But there are problems with penalties when that corrective is taken beyond its originally intended – and narrow – application to one-design and match racing.

What are the relative weights of an on-water infraction as opposed to some technical breach? To what extent should a penalty be punitive as well as an attempt to expunge any advantage the boat at fault may have obtained? Should penalties be primarily a system to restore fairness in the final results, or should they act more as deterrents to discourage careless or unscrupulous racing?

Our interest here is not so much in the rights or wrongs of the specific incident involving WOXI and Comanche. There is no doubt from the video evidence that WOXI was at fault. The International Jury convened in Hobart after the two yachts finished had no trouble coming to that finding.

The real point at issue now is whether the penalty they were then empowered by the Sailing Instructions to impose was fair to all yachts in the fleet.

As the organising authority of the Sydney-Hobart, the Cruising Yacht Club of Australia is free to delete, replace or amend any of the Racing Rules of Sailing as it believes them to be relevant to that specific event. Thus, in direct relation to the WOXI/Comanche incident, their 2017 Sailing Instructions included this:   

  1. ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES

(Amends RRS 44, 63.1 and 64)

20.1  BEFORE CLEARING TURNING MARKS Z/Y.

    1. (a)  For an infringement of Part 2 of the RRS that occurs after the Preparatory Signal and prior to the boat clearing the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y), the Two Turns Penalty under RRS 44.2 shall apply.
    2. (b)  A boat which is found after a protest hearing to have infringed a rule of Part 2 of the RRS after the Preparatory Signal and prior to the boat clearing the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y), shall receive a time penalty of not less than 5 minutes added to the boat’s elapsed time.

In other words, Wild Oats XI could have exonerated itself by taking a 2-turn penalty at the first safe and reasonable opportunity. They declined to do so. Comanche protested and the jury then found against them and imposed a 1-hour penalty.

That penalty was equivalent to around 3.5% of their elapsed time and only relegated them from 1st to 2nd place in the line honours division. While it is true that at the ego-driven supermaxi end of the fleet 2nd place is no better than last, the jury’s time penalty decision prompted immediate controversy.  

Why? Because there were other penalty clauses in the Sailing Instructions for the 2017 Hobart race, and they adopt different ways of determining those penalties. Here they are:

20.2  AFTER CLEARING TURNING MARK Z/Y.

    1. (a)  After a boat has cleared the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y), the Scoring Penalties of RRS 44.3 shall apply for an infringement of Part 2 of the RRS or these SIs.
    2. (b)  A boat which is found after a protest hearing to have infringed Part 2 of the RRS after clearing the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y) shall receive as a minimum a scoring penalty of 30%.
    3. (c)  A boat which fails to meet the requirements of SI 26 (Declarations) shall receive a scoring penalty of 20% applied by the Race Committee without a hearing (Amends RRS 63.1).

20.5  All penalties, unless otherwise specified, shall be computed as a percentage of the number of entries to the nearest whole number (rounding .5 upwards) in each Handicap Category or Division.

What does all that mean in practice?

Well, under 20.2 (b), had the WOXI/Comanche incident happened just a few minutes later – after both yachts had passed the seamark – then Wild Oats would have been penalized 30% of entrants in its division, not one hour. In IRC, they would have then finished in 44th place – a whopping 23 rungs lower than their actual handicap place, and 21 hours later on corrected time.   

More pertinently for this discussion, in the case of a yacht whose skipper has a few too many beers after the race and lodges their Declaration a minute later than 6 hours after finishing, they will be penalised 20% of the number of entrants (not finishers) in their division. So, a boat that sailed entirely by the rules and came, say, 2nd in a division of 50 entrants will be booted down to 12th place – for late paperwork.

And this is not just obscure, theoretical stuff. Automatic 20% scoring penalties for late Declarations were imposed by the Sydney-Hobart Race Director this year and last – and there is no hearing process or right of appeal.

To my mind this is hardly fair. Late entry to any major race such as the Sydney-Hobart always involves an additional processing fee. Maybe late declarations should attract a similar fine.

But the more troubling issue is one of apples-to-apples equivalence.

In a normal regatta context, WOXI would have been disqualified after the jury found she had tacked in Comanche’s water. Protests are resolved on that basis every week at yacht clubs around the world, and skippers accept their DSQs as fair and appropriate punishment.

Instead, under the CYCA rules for the Sydney-Hobart, Wild Oats XI’s reckless on-water breach of the racing rules could have been penalised as little as 5 minutes (which, by the way, is only slightly more time than it would have taken them to do two penalty turns).

Meanwhile, just for lodging a late (and largely meaningless) post-race Declaration, any other yacht was – without exception or right of appeal – penalised 20% of places in their division. In effect, they received a harsh on-water penalty for sloppy paperwork that had no bearing on the race itself.

By contrast, Wild Oats XI had an hour added to their elapsed time for a significant rule breach that could have cost lives.

There must be a better way.

imho, penalties' primary goal should be this (the high-lighted part).

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

+1000

+1001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

woxi gambled. and lost. period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS, it's called a penalty!  That means it must penalise the boat on which it was imposed.  WOXI was penalised and, as JasonSiebert pointed out, no boats uninvolved in the incident profitted - that seems a very good outcome to me.

The issue about 20% penalty for tardy paperwork is a separate issue and, while it should be addressed, it shouldn't be conflated with the "when boats meet" situation.  That's just sensationalism.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'll say it yet again

bet MR is rueing the decision not to do turns

Share this post


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

 

1.) By contrast, Wild Oats XI had an hour added to their elapsed time for a significant rule breach that could have cost lives.

2.) There must be a better way.

By way of simple logic in # 1.) above : a port and starboard rule breach in the AC (as per last AC) should be in line with a penalty to preserve life ? 

Note : WO and C are crewed (primarily) by sailors of same calibre / experience.

" Could have cost lives" ~ the intended AC monohulls will put close contact to the test - push the wrong button and see what happens !!

 

Share this post


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

By way of simple logic in # 1.) above : a port and starboard rule breach in the AC (as per last AC) should be in line with a penalty to preserve life ? 

Note : WO and C are crewed (primarily) by sailors of same calibre / experience.

" Could have cost lives" ~ the intended AC monohulls will put close contact to the test - push the wrong button and see what happens !!

 

Will they get close enough on the water for that. I doubt it. Look at last time. 

Share this post


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

What an utter nonsense is this David !!

" a significant rule breach that could have cost lives "  ????

Are you kidding me ????

Sure, Mark Richards tacked a little late. But didn't anyone see the (match racing) move executed by Jimmy Spithill ? He bore down a bit on WO XI and luffed to avoid a collision and to make sure WO XI was penalized. Check the video. Comanche wasn't even pinching when WO XI finished her tack. The jib was still fully pressured.   Mark Richards should have known better and have done his 720 but if anyone put "lives at risk" it was James Spithill.

But the fact is that he didn't.  He knew exactly what he was doing and there was no risk at all.

"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen"!

I see this all the time in regatta's and it bothers me. People who lack the ability to time speed and distance and stuff like that and freak out when other boats come to close for their comfort.

Again, WO XI took a risk, Spithill nailed them and Richards should have taken his medicine (720) but the notion that there was any risk of damage or people could have lost their lives is complete nonsense.

 

 

 

No one saw that, because it didn't happen. Stan Honey provided the GPS data:

"LDV Comanche did not make any discernible change of course while on starboard."

http://www.rolexsydneyhobart.com/media/3435643/protest-1.pdf

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

No one saw that, because it didn't happen. Stan Honey provided the GPS data:

"LDV Comanche did not make any discernible change of course while on starboard."

http://www.rolexsydneyhobart.com/media/3435643/protest-1.pdf

Maybe you are right. I thought I saw it but I agree that if I did it was quite subtle. But sometimes just a little bit can make all the difference.

What is undisputable however is that Spithill didn't take any evasive action until the very last moment. I count at least 10 seconds between WO starting to tack and Comanche luffing up. And that's perfectly okay with me. Like I said, I'm sure Spithill knew what he was doing and there was no real danger. This is how boats should be raced and I am sure that no professional crewmember on neither Comanche nor WO XI ever feared for his life during this incident. 

 

Share this post


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

What is undisputable however is that Spithill didn't take any evasive action until the very last moment. I count at least 10 seconds between WO starting to tack and Comanche luffing up. And that's perfectly okay with me. Like I said, I'm sure Spithill knew what he was doing and there was no real danger. This is how boats should be raced and I am sure that no professional crewmember on neither Comanche nor WO XI ever feared for his life during this incident. 

 

Not sure what you are seeing: 

Comanche on starboard, was required to avoid WOXI before WOXI completed their tack to starboard and leeward. 

That’s all that’s germane. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ENOUGH! Fer Christ's Sake.

We seem to live in a world where people play with words to try and make the point.

Some Facts - not false facts or opinion, FACTS!

The STANDARD penalty in yacht racing is a DSQ

The MAXIMUM penalty in the Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race 2017 was a DSQ.

The MINIMUM penalty was, according to the SI's, 5%

A PENALTY should be a PUNISHMENT.

Some hard facts: WOXI's "unpenalised" elapsed time was 1 day 8 hours 48 minutes OR approx. 32.8 hours

A 1 hour penalty is therefore actually about a 3% penalty.

How on earth can a penalty imposed by an International Jury of less than 5% (minimum stated ion the SI's) be considered harsh?

It was, if anything, generous and the absolute minimum and I mean ABSOLUTE minimum required to make the PENALTY a PUNISHMENT

It must be remembered that in the INTRODUCTION to the Racing Rules of Sailing is states "Other words and terms are used in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general terms"

The fact that the Oxford Dictionary defines "Penalty" as "A Punishment imposed for breaking a rule" should make it plain for everyone to see that, in connection with this case, the International Jury imposed the MINUMUM possible punishment on WOXI, the loss of just 1 place and a penalty that was in fact less than they could have - way less.

Any statement to the contrary is no more than hot air.

Let it drop people, WOXI broke a rule, didn't take a penalty and were punished - end of story - not my opinion - the decision of the duly appointed International Jury

SS

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

ENOUGH! Fer Christ's Sake.

We seem to live in a world where people play with words to try and make the point.

Some Facts - not false facts or opinion, FACTS!

The STANDARD penalty in yacht racing is a DSQ

The MAXIMUM penalty in the Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race 2017 was a DSQ.

The MINIMUM penalty was, according to the SI's, 5%

A PENALTY should be a PUNISHMENT.

Some hard facts: WOXI's "unpenalised" elapsed time was 1 day 8 hours 48 minutes OR approx. 32.8 hours

A 1 hour penalty is therefore actually about a 3% penalty.

How on earth can a penalty imposed by an International Jury of less than 5% (minimum stated ion the SI's) be considered harsh?

It was, if anything, generous and the absolute minimum and I mean ABSOLUTE minimum required to make the PENALTY a PUNISHMENT

It must be remembered that in the INTRODUCTION to the Racing Rules of Sailing is states "Other words and terms are used in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general terms"

The fact that the Oxford Dictionary defines "Penalty" as "A Punishment imposed for breaking a rule" should make it plain for everyone to see that, in connection with this case, the International Jury imposed the MINUMUM possible punishment on WOXI, the loss of just 1 place and a penalty that was in fact less than they could have - way less.

Any statement to the contrary is no more than hot air.

Let it drop people, WOXI broke a rule, didn't take a penalty and were punished - end of story - not my opinion - the decision of the duly appointed International Jury

SS

What an opinionated load of drivel!!!!

Line 7 This is surely your opinion not fact. In actual fact according to you it is a tautology as a Penalty is by definition a Punishment.

Line 6 Minimum Penalty was (most probably) a 720 or 5 min penalty.

Had the jury imposed the 5 minute minimum Penalty/Punishment (or anything less than the 27minute winning margin as a penalty ) then the argument would rage on.

Otherwise I totally agree with your OPINION that the penalty was just.

 

Share this post


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

Maybe you are right. I thought I saw it but I agree that if I did it was quite subtle. But sometimes just a little bit can make all the difference.

What is undisputable however is that Spithill didn't take any evasive action until the very last moment. I count at least 10 seconds between WO starting to tack and Comanche luffing up. And that's perfectly okay with me. Like I said, I'm sure Spithill knew what he was doing and there was no real danger. This is how boats should be raced and I am sure that no professional crewmember on neither Comanche nor WO XI ever feared for his life during this incident. 

 

I have seen Stan Honey's navigation plot (right place, right time) and it is unchallengeable. Shows a perfectly straight track at 1 second intervals for the whole of C's starboard tack until heading up to avoid WO. And this from a mass inertia compass he says cost $190k with mm accuracy. 

Your point about fearing or not for their lives may be valid, but at 4.5m per second the incident was less than a second away from genuine race ending damage. Still makes DSQ look the right decision. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still makes a DSQ look the right decision .... well why only a 60 minute penalty ? 

WO in hindsight ~ should have done a 720 as allowed under the Rules they were saying under to avoid the position of exposing their throat, as they had obviously stuck their neck out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We just need one more thread & we can equal Bob Perry's 4 Carbon Cutters effort. 

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Meanwhile, just for lodging a late (and largely meaningless) post-race Declaration, any other yacht was – without exception or right of appeal – penalised 20% of places in their division. In effect, they received a harsh on-water penalty for sloppy paperwork that had no bearing on the race itself.

By contrast, Wild Oats XI had an hour added to their elapsed time for a significant rule breach that could have cost lives.

There must be a better way.

Ignoring all the stupid arguments about the WOXI vs Comanche incident, the bolded text is for all intents the entire complaint of the long, boring and poorly reasoned post.

No, the lodging of the post race declaration is not meaningless. Not at all. My sailing club now requires post race sign off for any round the cans race. No sign off - no result. This is additional to a retirement sign off.  The reason is the same. To make absolutely sure that everyone is back safely. Safety rules brook no argument and sadly seem to need a significant penalty to ensure compliance.  A skipper that gets stuck into the piss within six hours of crossing the line, and before ensuring that the boat is sorted out safe at its mooring, and before completing the mandatory safety checkoff is not some poor victim, he is an idiot and not fit to be PIC on a Cat 1 race. 

The better way might be to charge the skipper with some appropriate offence with a mandatory minimum jail term. They could keep their race result and the skipper could take some quiet time to contemplate just why a race like the S2H does not take kindly to idiots that make safety harder to manage. Being PIC has defined legal responsibilities. Being PIC in a Cat 1 race has very clear responsibilities that nobody has excuse to ignore. It isn't just about your boat, but about the entire fleet, and the safety resources available for the fleet. The OA has limited teeth to ensure compliance, boats sign up to the rules for compliance, and the OA sets out exactly what happens when they are not complied with. 20% is again rather lax. DSQ would be a much better answer IMHO, as it means that even the stragglers for whom race position is no longer important have a clear incentive to comply.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Jail time .......   for placing lives at risk ?

Makes doing a 720 a no brainer !!!

:) I am of course being slightly provocative/facetious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know enough about the rules...

but how much time would Wild Oats have had to take the 720 penalty (relief)?

Could they have waited until just before crossing the finishing line? Or would they have had to take the 720 turn immediately?

 

If they could have done it at any time in the race (with someone actually seeing them doing it), then what would be the reason for not doing it before crossing the line?

 

Share this post


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

:) I am of course being slightly provocative/facetious. 

Pack em, stack em and rack em is what we say down here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S.S. I appreciate the fact that as a journalist, you want to deal in facts.

Here are some facts,

R.R.S. R.13 does NOT contain the following points;

Distance that KEEP CLEAR is judged by.

Time that KEEP CLEAR is judged by.

Speed of boats involved in the incident.

Length of boats involved in incident.

Value of boats involved in incident.

Fear factor of people involved.

Safety of manoeuvre.

It states in fact: she shall keep clear of other boats until she is on a close-hauled course.

It doesnt even state the boat needs to be trimmed up on that course...

In Aus, many of our sports are judged down to a single frame from video footage, this may capture an event at .1/sec. and that is good enough for the pros that play Rugby League, Union, Cricket, Tennis, Horse racing, there are probably more.

With the availability and popularity of drones, will more sailing events use the technology to adjudicate on manoeuvres / mark roundings?

This jury reviewed video of the event, before facts were found, I wonder how in-depth that review was conducted.

In the future, if someone yells out protest, and you comply by doing a 720, will you be allowed redress for time lost if video / stills, show that you had in fact complied with the rules.

Please note, I do not have a foot in either camp, just wondering what the future holds now that video has been used to adjudicate such a public moment as this.

Here are 2 screen shots from Ch7 heli video of the incident:

 

5a4c90ea0fb54_W.O_vCom.2.JPG.51ddd74c76ef90136948e725f7180cb5.JPG

5a4c912823a44_W.O_vCom.JPG.90fef07b3c99c130fde2e5ce200814e3.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Covered off in the Sydney to Hobart thread. 5-10 mins they guess. 

No. Turns to be done as soon as possible  

44.2 After getting well clear of other boats as soon after the incident as possible, a boat takes a One-Turn or Two-Turns Penalty by promptly making the required number of turns in the same direction, each turn including one tack and one gybe. When a boat takes the penalty at or near the finishing line, she shall sail completely to the course side of the line before finishing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought for breaking the rules you got transportation as a penalty...followed by being indentured?

Share this post


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

What an utter nonsense is this David !!

" a significant rule breach that could have cost lives "  ????

Are you kidding me ????

Sure, Mark Richards tacked a little late. But didn't anyone see the (match racing) move executed by Jimmy Spithill ? He bore down a bit on WO XI and luffed to avoid a collision and to make sure WO XI was penalized. Check the video. Comanche wasn't even pinching when WO XI finished her tack. The jib was still fully pressured.   Mark Richards should have known better and have done his 720 but if anyone put "lives at risk" it was James Spithill.

But the fact is that he didn't.  He knew exactly what he was doing and there was no risk at all.

"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen"!

I see this all the time in regatta's and it bothers me. People who lack the ability to time speed and distance and stuff like that and freak out when other boats come to close for their comfort.

Again, WO XI took a risk, Spithill nailed them and Richards should have taken his medicine (720) but the notion that there was any risk of damage or people could have lost their lives is complete nonsense.

 

 

The rules are there for a reason or shall we engage in a how fucking good is Mark Richards session.! Obviously not or is his thing for being an arrogant prickl.The incident has been replayed a million times do we really need to play dumb fucking idiot.! 

Share this post


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

I don't know enough about the rules...

but how much time would Wild Oats have had to take the 720 penalty (relief)?

Could they have waited until just before crossing the finishing line? Or would they have had to take the 720 turn immediately?

If they could have done it at any time in the race (with someone actually seeing them doing it), then what would be the reason for not doing it before crossing the line?

The changed SI's didn't change the rules for taking turns, just modified the times when taking turns was allowed for exoneration (before the sea mark 44.2 - turns - applies; after the mark 44.3 - self imposed 20% score - applies.). From the RRS 44.2:

After getting well clear of other boats as soon after the incident as possible, a boat takes a One-Turn or Two-Turns Penalty by promptly making the required number of turns...

So, no, they could not wait until and take the turns at their leisure.  "as soon ... as possible" and "promptly" are difficult to argue with. They certainly needed to be getting on with the turns before thinking about anything else.

Share this post


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

I thought for breaking the rules you got transportation as a penalty...followed by being indentured?

But not if you are already Australian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A penalty that doesn't penalize Is no penalty at all.  WOXI got off lightly.  If the CYCA hadnt Played with the RRS and had DSQ as the penalty I reckon Richards may have chosen the 720 option.

Share this post


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

S.S. I appreciate the fact that as a journalist, you want to deal in facts.

Here are some facts,

R.R.S. R.13 does NOT contain the following points;

Distance that KEEP CLEAR is judged by.

Time that KEEP CLEAR is judged by.

Speed of boats involved in the incident.

Length of boats involved in incident.

Value of boats involved in incident.

Fear factor of people involved.

Safety of manoeuvre.

It states in fact: she shall keep clear of other boats until she is on a close-hauled course.

It doesnt even state the boat needs to be trimmed up on that course...

In Aus, many of our sports are judged down to a single frame from video footage, this may capture an event at .1/sec. and that is good enough for the pros that play Rugby League, Union, Cricket, Tennis, Horse racing, there are probably more.

With the availability and popularity of drones, will more sailing events use the technology to adjudicate on manoeuvres / mark roundings?

This jury reviewed video of the event, before facts were found, I wonder how in-depth that review was conducted.

In the future, if someone yells out protest, and you comply by doing a 720, will you be allowed redress for time lost if video / stills, show that you had in fact complied with the rules.

Please note, I do not have a foot in either camp, just wondering what the future holds now that video has been used to adjudicate such a public moment as this.

Here are 2 screen shots from Ch7 heli video of the incident:

 

5a4c90ea0fb54_W.O_vCom.2.JPG.51ddd74c76ef90136948e725f7180cb5.JPG

5a4c912823a44_W.O_vCom.JPG.90fef07b3c99c130fde2e5ce200814e3.JPG

No t that it matters anymore : same painting with a different perspective :

looking at the two photographs in isolation ( they don't agree with my take on the video material I have watched) I would conclude WO is sailing away and going higher ~ Commanche makes a fair mess of the water surface !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In neither of those screen shots has WOXI reached close hauled.  Look at the jib and her wake on the other tack.

FFS she was in the wrong and without C taking evasive action a collision would have occurred.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't agree with your take on the photographs, trying to read evidence from the wake in this isolated situation is like reading tea leaves ! Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the sail setting (trim) comes in the equation.

: what I am saying is that the video evidence is not reliable given sea state (confused) and camera position in the two photographs.

Share this post


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

What an opinionated load of drivel!!!!

Line 7 This is surely your opinion not fact. In actual fact according to you it is a tautology as a Penalty is by definition a Punishment.

Line 6 Minimum Penalty was (most probably) a 720 or 5 min penalty.

Had the jury imposed the 5 minute minimum Penalty/Punishment (or anything less than the 27minute winning margin as a penalty ) then the argument would rage on.

Otherwise I totally agree with your OPINION 7hat the penalty was just.

 

Hi Frant English is perhaps not your first language but you must know how to use a dictionary to find "tautology"

Opinionated from "opinion" = "a view not necessarily based on fact". I think you will find my post was facts not opinions.

Your comment about Line 7  which (in my original post) reads "A penalty should be a punishment" is most certainly NOT an opinion as the RRS clearly state words have the meaning in general usage and a penalty according to the dictionary IS a punishment and that tome is written by people with a much greater understanding of the English language than either me or you.

If you bother to read the RSHYC 2017 SI's (and here's the link for you http://rolexsydneyhobart.com/media/3435416/rshyr-si-finalv2.pdf ) you will see that in 20.1(b) it states a minimum penalty but NO maximum penalty. A 720 was NOT an option once WOXI declined to "get well clear of other boats as soon after the incident as possible" If she had none of us would have had anything to talk about for the past week :-)

With regard to the maximum penalty I suggest you read SI's 20.3 and 22.1 both use the word "MAY" and not "SHALL". This is a significant difference which allows the International Jury to ignore, should it choose to the option to penalise "In lieu of disqualification". Again NOT opinion but what is taught on both Umpire and Judges seminars as well as being plain English.

The International Jury were not at liberty to impose a 27 minute penalty as this is way less than the 5% minimum stated in the SI's (at around 1.5% to save you having to work it out) I think you will find my post was facts not opinions.

The only opinion I expressed was that in awarding a penalty of less than 5% the IJ was not being harsh as some have suggested.

Anyway, I'm done on the subject.

SS

In actual fact the jury imposed, as I stated, LESS than 5% penalty so I don't understand your point in your Line 4 - do the math.

Drivel? Well as you have just demonstrated with your response, everyone, especially here is entitled to their opinion

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm out of here on this, far too many WOXI fans and people trying to 'bend the rules to their arguments/opinions.

Last comment - Hilly. you say that I am a journalist I like to deal in facts? Well I would hope that anyone that officiates/adjudicates  in our sport also deals in facts.

I am however not a journalist, I am a lifelong sailor who loves or sport and happens to write about it. More than a subtle difference. Having said that most of the good journos who write about our sport are racers too.

The ruling was made on far more than the video evidence,.GPS tracks, witness statements and questions from the jury. The Jury Chairman was appointed as an IJ around 1996, and IU around 2004 (I think), has a couple of America's Cups on his resume and was accompanied by 2 other IJs and 2 x NJs and their collective knowledge and experience certainly gives me confidence the correct decision was made.

Your piece about Rule 13 is pretty much spot on but before you rule out "Fear factor of the people involved" I suggest you read World Sailing Case 50. Where the term "reasonable apprehension" is used.

It is also worth noting that rule 13 indirectly states (due to the imbedded defined term) that the tacking boat shall  not cause the right of way boat to have to take avoid action and of course it is therefore that definition that the whole case hung on.

Your comment on redress is not quite accurate. Only if "no fault of your own" - lack of rules knowledge may not be considered "no fault by some and your score made "significantly worse".

Anyway, dinner is on the table and the dogs need walking :-)

Sail safe

SS

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

In the future, if someone yells out protest, and you comply by doing a 720, will you be allowed redress for time lost if video / stills, show that you had in fact complied with the rules.

No, because you are expected to know the rules, and not be in any doubt whether you complied with them or not. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The International Jury were not at liberty to impose a 27 minute penalty as this is way less than the 5% minimum stated in the SI's (at around 1.5% to save you having to work it out) I think you will find my post was facts not opinions.
 

In actual fact the jury imposed, as I stated, LESS than 5% penalty so I don't understand your point in your Line 4 - do the math.

The minum penalty in SI is 5 minutes not 5%. However I think even 1 hour was a really small penalty in this case.

Share this post


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

Why can't the conversation be about why the arrogant fucks didn't do their turns? What a waste of converation

Have you never thought you were in the right and then lost in the room? Or have you never been to the room? Or have you never been wrong? Now what was that you were saying about someone being an arrogant prick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troviao #14) +1.  Simple is always best!

There is a better way! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, janbart said:

Again, WO XI took a risk, Spithill nailed them and Richards should have taken his medicine (720) but the notion that there was any risk of damage or people could have lost their lives is complete nonsense.

 

 

 

If you have seen two 100 footers collide before you would not believe the way you do.  

 

4 hours ago, Vitamin C said:

Why can't the conversation be about why the arrogant fucks didn't do their turns? What a waste of converation

No shit.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If you have seen two 100 footers collide before you would not believe the way you do.  

 

No shit.  

+1

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Goldfinger01 said:

A penalty that doesn't penalize Is no penalty at all.  WOXI got off lightly.  If the CYCA hadnt Played with the RRS and had DSQ as the penalty I reckon Richards may have chosen the 720 option.

What's the point? Line honors and even more so the record is all that counts for wild oats. 

Losing one hours and thereby losing the line honors and the record is the same as DSQ for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

If you have seen two 100 footers collide before you would not believe the way you do.  

 

No shit.  

Genuinely curious, and not busting your balls here, when was the last time we had supermaxi on supermaxi violence? Was it the T-Boning at YCCS back in like 2010? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

been a while, though I've seen a couple videos from crashes that never were reported on both at YCCS and Palma that scared the piss out of me.  Couldn't report them either - agreed to confidentiality to review the vids.

Share this post


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

But not if you are already Australian.

I mean, where could they transport you to? 

 

Share this post


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

I have seen Stan Honey's navigation plot (right place, right time) and it is unchallengeable. Shows a perfectly straight track at 1 second intervals for the whole of C's starboard tack until heading up to avoid WO. And this from a mass inertia compass he says cost $190k with mm accuracy. 

Your point about fearing or not for their lives may be valid, but at 4.5m per second the incident was less than a second away from genuine race ending damage. Still makes DSQ look the right decision. 

My emphasis.  I am quoting this because no one else has. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

been a while, though I've seen a couple videos from crashes that never were reported on both at YCCS and Palma that scared the piss out of me.  Couldn't report them either - agreed to confidentiality to review the vids.

Dya have the photo handy of the aftermath of the TBone? If a person had been sitting on that rail, or even near the impact point down below, they would have been greviously injured. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lee bow tack that was too close in J-29's left the skipper bleeding badly from a slashed stern pulpit that cut deep into his back and into his liver on a Rolex St Thomas race ages ago. He just about bled out before they could get him off the boat and the wounds and spinal damage left the skipper a shadow of his former self. If this could happen in little J-29's it could have far greater potential loss of life and/or limb on a 100'er. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ignoring all the stupid arguments about the WOXI vs Comanche incident, the bolded text is for all intents the entire complaint of the long, boring and poorly reasoned post.

No, the lodging of the post race declaration is not meaningless. Not at all. My sailing club now requires post race sign off for any round the cans race. No sign off - no result. This is additional to a retirement sign off.  The reason is the same. To make absolutely sure that everyone is back safely. Safety rules brook no argument and sadly seem to need a significant penalty to ensure compliance.  A skipper that gets stuck into the piss within six hours of crossing the line, and before ensuring that the boat is sorted out safe at its mooring, and before completing the mandatory safety checkoff is not some poor victim, he is an idiot and not fit to be PIC on a Cat 1 race. 

The better way might be to charge the skipper with some appropriate offence with a mandatory minimum jail term. They could keep their race result and the skipper could take some quiet time to contemplate just why a race like the S2H does not take kindly to idiots that make safety harder to manage. Being PIC has defined legal responsibilities. Being PIC in a Cat 1 race has very clear responsibilities that nobody has excuse to ignore. It isn't just about your boat, but about the entire fleet, and the safety resources available for the fleet. The OA has limited teeth to ensure compliance, boats sign up to the rules for compliance, and the OA sets out exactly what happens when they are not complied with. 20% is again rather lax. DSQ would be a much better answer IMHO, as it means that even the stragglers for whom race position is no longer important have a clear incentive to comply.

the problem is, as I understand it, the website was really wonky. at least one boat tried repeatedly to register their declaration with no success. ended up costing them line honors and 1st overall in their class. if you're going to have that big a penalty, your tech better work.

Share this post


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

My emphasis.  I am quoting this because no one else has. 

 

 

I am slightly skeptical about this.  The video seemed to be unequivocal in showing Comanche putting the bow down for a short time, which makes perfect sense given Jimmy Spithill's match racing background.  I commented on it while watching the incident at the time (and used the term "hunting" because I thought that was what JS was up to - and I didn't even hear the "piece of him" comment).  However, a change of heading of a couple of degrees for a couple of seconds would not equate to a shift in course made good by a 100'er of any more than a couple of inches at the metacentre of the boat  (and the whizzbang compass may not have been at that point, further confusing the matter).  I'd say Stan Honey would know that, and would also know that producing a straight line print-out would be good corroborating evidence for Comanche's argument, even if it doesn't tell the whole story.  But IJs aren't stupid, and are perfectly capable of arriving at their own conclusions after considering all the evidence.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recidivist:  Two thoughts.  (1) Does a simple comment along the lines of "got a piece of him" result only in the conclusion of hunting, or could it mean something else such as simply be a statement of sudden realization of the fact, and (2) In the sea state present at the time, and the amount that the bows were bouncing around, do you think that that 2 degrees could ever be a number that could be either recorded in boat electronics, or observable to the naked eye?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Recidivist said:

I am slightly skeptical about this.  The video seemed to be unequivocal in showing Comanche putting the bow down for a short time,

I suggest though, they only put their bow down when it was clear WO was not going to tack safely to leeward of Comanche. At that point RRS14 comes into play, and Comanche is obliged to attempt to avoid a collision. If WO had attempted to cross then the only way Comanche could avoid a collision was to attempt to duck behind WO. They then saw WO start to tack dead ahead of them, at which point luffing up became the best way of avoiding a collision, and that's what they did.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Recidivist:  Two thoughts.  (1) Does a simple comment along the lines of "got a piece of him" result only in the conclusion of hunting, or could it mean something else such as simply be a statement of sudden realization of the fact, and (2) In the sea state present at the time, and the amount that the bows were bouncing around, do you think that that 2 degrees could ever be a number that could be either recorded in boat electronics, or observable to the naked eye?

I used to sail with a guy whose version of "I've got a piece of him" was to call out "where do you want the hole?" when a port tack boat looked like pushing the rules. Usually when the cross/duck was put in that perspective, the port tack boat would decide that it wasn't worth it...

 

IIRC, Ben Lexcen was a fan of avoiding lee bows, slam dunks and crash tacks. The philosophy was to do with dropping the bow (even if you had right of way) and waving the other boat through as you'd accelerate by coming down and you ended up doing fewer tacks (and costing time). So if you had a favoured side of the course, you could get there in one or two tacks and if you had to dip 3 or 4 sterns (but went half a knot quicker each time you did that) then it averaged out in your favour.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/01/2018 at 5:50 AM, janbart said:

Again, WO XI took a risk, Spithill nailed them and Richards should have taken his medicine (720) but the notion that there was any risk of damage or people could have lost their lives is complete nonsense.

 

 

 

http://sailinganarchy.com/2017/10/23/here-kitty-kitty-2/

This was a pair of 70 footers coming together earlier this year in a pre-start.

 

11137103.jpg

This is after the rig came down on the 100' Maximus (then Loyal, Ragamuffin and now Scallywag).

 

In fact, Wild Oats dropped their mast years ago at a Maxi World Cup. The whiplash of the boat as the rig came down threw more than one of the crew off the rail and into the water. So imagine having a broken rig attached to your boat, crew in the water or injured on deck, with a fleet of 80 boats 10 minutes after the start gun all converging on your location....

You're right, there's NO risk of damage or potential loss of life. The NSW Coroner's Court would love to meet you...

Share this post


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

the problem is, as I understand it, the website was really wonky. at least one boat tried repeatedly to register their declaration with no success. ended up costing them line honors and 1st overall in their class. if you're going to have that big a penalty, your tech better work.

That would be unforgivable - but all too common IMHO. However the original article didn't use that as an example - the Ed explicitly said someone who hit the piss and simply forgot.

In the case of a poor website - that is the OA not being up to the task. The website has become a safety critical component of the race operation, and a wonky system, and especially one where there is no manual backup (ie fill in a paper form and walk it to the race office) is not up to the level needed. I would protest the RC for that. Not for seeing redress on your mandatory DSQ, but for not providing a safety infrastructure of appropriate reliability. (I know it would get nowhere - but it would make the point - notification of finishing is there for safety reasons - not just housekeeping.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst there has been much made of the 4 to 5 metres between the boats when WO had completed and approximately 1 to 2 seconds later COM would have made contact, most do not appreciate that WO was traveling about 2knots quicker out of the tack which means COM would not have got to them if they held their course.  It did appear that COM was closer than that but that was when COM luffed and picked up speed.  I note that when COM luffed by about 15 degrees the headsail did not break at the luff so they must have been well below a close hauled course.

Share this post


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

I am slightly skeptical about this.  The video seemed to be unequivocal in showing Comanche putting the bow down for a short time, which makes perfect sense given Jimmy Spithill's match racing background.  I commented on it while watching the incident at the time (and used the term "hunting" because I thought that was what JS was up to - and I didn't even hear the "piece of him" comment).  However, a change of heading of a couple of degrees for a couple of seconds would not equate to a shift in course made good by a 100'er of any more than a couple of inches at the metacentre of the boat  (and the whizzbang compass may not have been at that point, further confusing the matter).  I'd say Stan Honey would know that, and would also know that producing a straight line print-out would be good corroborating evidence for Comanche's argument, even if it doesn't tell the whole story.  But IJs aren't stupid, and are perfectly capable of arriving at their own conclusions after considering all the evidence.

Aha !!...... So I'm not alone !!      Nice to meet you Recidivist. I think you hit the nail on the head.

Share this post


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

 Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the sail setting (trim) comes in the equation.

 

Red,  here is rule 13.

WOXI was clearly well above close hauled (see the jib).  This is the rule breach for which she was penalised (and not taking her turns).n

13
WHILE TACKING
 
After a boat passes head to wind, she shall keep clear of other boats until she is on a close-hauled course.  During that time rules 10, 11 and 12 do not apply. If two boats are subject to this rule at the same time, the one on the other's port side or the one astern shall keep clear.

Share this post


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

The minum penalty in SI is 5 minutes not 5%. However I think even 1 hour was a really small penalty in this case.

Apologies - just shows the importance of reading what is actually there and not what you expect to be there. Scratch one up to me.

What a frigging idiot!! Huge helpings of humble pie on the calculations. I still reckon a 1 place penalty is not huge. In fact smallest punishment they could hand out in reality especialy considering a DSQ was still in their quiver

SS

Share this post


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

I suggest though, they only put their bow down when it was clear WO was not going to tack safely to leeward of Comanche. At that point RRS14 comes into play, and Comanche is obliged to attempt to avoid a collision. If WO had attempted to cross then the only way Comanche could avoid a collision was to attempt to duck behind WO. They then saw WO start to tack dead ahead of them, at which point luffing up became the best way of avoiding a collision, and that's what they did.

Jim, you may be right.  I haven't gone back and replayed the video, but when I was watching at the time, I thought JS put the bow down a tad to dissuade WOXI from the leebow - but I don't think JS foresaw that Richo would tack dead in front!  When Comanche came back up, then hard up, hunting was my first thought, but that may not have been the case at all.  Comanche's actions are perfectly explicable without hunting being involved (I was undoubtedly swayed by JS's reputation for never backing off from a stoush).

Jah, as I said, I didn't hear the piece of him comment, so that certainly didn't give rise to the hunting conclusion - it's just what I thought at the time (my other comment right at the time was "You CAN'T tack THERE!").

I think 2 degrees is pushing it for the Mk 1 eyeball, but it certainly looked to me that's what was happening. As I said, I haven't gone back and watched it again - it matters bugger all to me either way.

Family Sailor - feel free to go fuck yourself.

R

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

You're getting pretty close to calling Stan Honey a liar and/or a cheat. I'd suggest you stop trying to manipulate the conversation to fit your fact free opinion of what happened.

Seriously janbart and Recidivist???

Stan Honey would fabricate evidence, or tell only the part of the story that suits his case?? No way. 

Go sailing with real people at the level of Honey and Spithill, the brush with honesty and integrity would do you good. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Seriously janbart and Recidivist???

Stan Honey would fabricate evidence, or tell only the part of the story that suits his case?? No way. 

Go sailing with real people at the level of Honey and Spithill, the brush with honesty and integrity would do you good. 

The day that I DO call Stan Honey a liar or a cheat, you are free to have a go at me.  Until then, please STFU.  If your first thought when reading my musings is so vitriolic, you must live a miserable existence.

BTW, you have come much closer to saying that I am dishonest and lack integrity.  Care to back those imputations up with a name and address for service?

 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

the problem is, as I understand it, the website was really wonky. at least one boat tried repeatedly to register their declaration with no success. ended up costing them line honors and 1st overall in their class. if you're going to have that big a penalty, your tech better work.

If the layout of this year's post race arrangements was the same as last year then about a 5 minute walk takes you to the race office where a declaration could be signed manually - crikey, it was even on the way to Hobart's favourite post race watering hole so no excuse really. Celebrations on our boat were pretty excited as the team did better than expected but it didn't stop the short walk up to sign in. Blaming a website when a pen could do the same job is a thin excuse UNLESS it was web based only this year which I don't know

SS 

Share this post


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

The day that I DO call Stan Honey a liar or a cheat, you are free to have a go at me.  Until then, please STFU.  If your first thought when reading my musings is so vitriolic, you must live a miserable existence.

BTW, you have come much closer to saying that I am dishonest and lack integrity.  Care to back those imputations up with a name and address for service?

 

Don’t you just love it when screen names want to sue each other. I’ll have my virtual attorney call your virtual attorney. Depo’s down the hall in the Minecraft forum.

Share this post


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

If the layout of this year's post race arrangements was the same as last year then about a 5 minute walk takes you to the race office where a declaration could be signed manually - crikey, it was even on the way to Hobart's favourite post race watering hole so no excuse really. Celebrations on our boat were pretty excited as the team did better than expected but it didn't stop the short walk up to sign in. Blaming a website when a pen could do the same job is a thin excuse UNLESS it was web based only this year which I don't know

SS 

I don't know if it was web based only or not. But I do know that as far as the crew was concerned, they'd done what they'd been asked to do. it wasn't that the site threw an error, but it also didn't issue a receipt. so yeah you're right if there is an alternate than that's on them, but a 20 minute window doesn't really give you a lot of leeway if it takes you 10 minutes to figure out there's a problem. Sucks.. but I think the bigger issue is how paperwork can be worth more of a penalty than an otw incident. But rules are rules, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Recidivist said:

  Care to back those imputations up with a name and address for service?

 

his login ain't just a nickname!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't know if it was web based only or not. But I do know that as far as the crew was concerned, they'd done what they'd been asked to do. it wasn't that the site threw an error, but it also didn't issue a receipt. so yeah you're right if there is an alternate than that's on them, but a 20 minute window doesn't really give you a lot of leeway if it takes you 10 minutes to figure out there's a problem. Sucks.. but I think the bigger issue is how paperwork can be worth more of a penalty than an otw incident. But rules are rules, right?

The SI's actually allow a 6 hour window to 'declare' and don't appear to mention a manual alternative.

I know what I would do if a couple of attempts failed, I would go (or send a responsible crew member) down to the race office and either sign a manual declaration or raise hell about an unreliable web service if there was no manual alternative.

It is not as if declarations are something new or unusual and sailors, especially offshore sailors should know their importance from a safety (as well as