SteveC

Snowflakes and sailing

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

That Hydro shit will do that.

Oh-Really-Now-Please-Tell-Me-More-Man-Me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree port tack's statement was BS and we were just as lame not to protest but my point was about hailing in a timely manner to ascertain his intentions and give us something we could use to base our next move, if necessary. I don't think that would have been offensive or unreasonable and you can bet I'll hail if it's my boat someone's bearing down on. 

Share this post


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

Boat A clearly fouls boat B in front of me, Rule 10.  Boat A does not do a penalty, Boat B is heard to say to Boat A "Don't worry about it, keep going".... I would protest Boat B for Rule 2 and 69.

You are entitled to bring whatever protests you wish. The question is whether they would have any reasonable likelihood of success.

I asked for a case supporting your interpretation of Rule 2; not some hypothetical.

I see nothing in either the Case Book 2017-2020 or Supplement 2018 that supports your expansive interpretation of Rule 2. But I'm happy to stand corrected, if you can point to any case.

Share this post


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

...And that takes us full circle to the first post. It’s anarchy out there! Put on your big girl panties, leave your feelings on the dock and hang on punk!

 

5 hours ago, LB 15 said:

That Hydro shit will do that.

you need a b00b break

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4f9edea18917251aa72e15dec9585357.jpg

Share this post


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

You are entitled to bring whatever protests you wish. The question is whether they would have any reasonable likelihood of success.

I asked for a case supporting your interpretation of Rule 2; not some hypothetical.

I see nothing in either the Case Book 2017-2020 or Supplement 2018 that supports your expansive interpretation of Rule 2. But I'm happy to stand corrected, if you can point to any case.

So you think that if it's not in the Case Book that my view is not correct?

Are you saying that in the example I supplied that there are no grounds for Boat C to protest both A and B?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random, unless there is a collision then your protest would have no grounds. Kinardly's example does not mention a collision, and you say clearly foul rather than collide in your ABC example. 

Otherwise you would be protesting every time a starboard boat let a port boat cross. 

If two boats collide, and neither do turns, then you'd have valid protest. In this scenario you could wait until after racing and protest both boats, but what would probably be better would be talk to the boat you think was in the right, and tell them to protest and offer to be a witness. 

Share this post


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

Random, unless there is a collision then your protest would have no grounds. Kinardly's example does not mention a collision, and you say clearly foul rather than collide in your ABC example. 

Otherwise you would be protesting every time a starboard boat let a port boat cross. 

If two boats collide, and neither do turns, then you'd have valid protest. In this scenario you could wait until after racing and protest both boats, but what would probably be better would be talk to the boat you think was in the right, and tell them to protest and offer to be a witness. 

Does not have to be a collision.  An obvious crash tack or both boats luffing up to avoid each other would do.

How do you prove a collision if there is no damage?  All boat C has to see is one or more boats breaking one or more rules and not doing penalties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know / prove that the crash tack was to avoid the other boat and not just that they were planning on tacking there anyway? 

You're right, a collision is hard to prove without damage, but you should have a witness, just like any other protest. A third party witness can say whether they saw a collision or not, but they can't speculate whether it was intention of the right of way boat to tack there or not. 

On the other hand with no collision, you'd have to prove that the right of way boat wasn't making that manoeuvre (crash tack) out of choice. Without A or B coming out saying that they would have carried on had the other boat not infringed them you're protest would be lobbed out. And why would they say that when admitting it would get them binned? 

What about the situation where a starboard boat chooses to duck a port boat? Would you protest that? I always duck port boats if I'm on or over the starboard layline. I always duck port boats if I think they'd be a threat to my lane if they tacked. I only really ever call starboard on a boat if I think they haven't seen me, or if I'm planning a tack soon, but not quite just yet and I want to bounce them out to the wrong side of the course. 

 

Share this post


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

How do you know / prove that the crash tack was to avoid the other boat and not just that they were planning on tacking there anyway? 

I have 5 crew for witnesses.  It was very close.

You're right, a collision is hard to prove without damage, but you should have a witness, just like any other protest. A third party witness can say whether they saw a collision or not, but they can't speculate whether it was intention of the right of way boat to tack there or not. 

I heard Boat B tell Boat A "Don't worry about it, keep going!" and I saw Boat A not do a penalty.

On the other hand with no collision, you'd have to prove that the right of way boat wasn't making that manoeuvre (crash tack) out of choice. Without A or B coming out saying that they would have carried on had the other boat not infringed them you're protest would be lobbed out. And why would they say that when admitting it would get them binned? 

Boat C and possibly other boats witnessing the foul is as good as any other boat.  The offenders do not have to admit it, it just has to be convincing to the PC.

What about the situation where a starboard boat chooses to duck a port boat? Would you protest that?

No, not if it was clear that both boats were communicating and agreed.

I always duck port boats if I'm on or over the starboard layline. I always duck port boats if I think they'd be a threat to my lane if they tacked. I only really ever call starboard on a boat if I think they haven't seen me, or if I'm planning a tack soon, but not quite just yet and I want to bounce them out to the wrong side of the course. 

Good for you, but others are free to make different calls in the attempt to win by under the rules.

 

See inserted text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling your crew as witness, their perspective will be identical to your own, it'll probably be discounted or given very little weight. At the end of the day it's your opinion that one of the boat took avoiding action. That boat will always say that they took an action, but it wasn't to avoid the other boat, it was just the action they wanted to take. 

The boats being close does not mean the right of way boat was not always intending to tack there. Boat being close isn't against the rules. Doing a crash tack isn't against the rules. There's nothing you have seen which is against the rules. You'd need one of teh parties to admit they were infringed as they were forced to tack avoiding action. 

The fact you heard a boat say don't worry about doesn't meant anything. That could be, 'don't worry about, keep going' as in, 'we were going to tack anyway, you haven't broke any rules, carry on'. 

In this case, the defenders do have to admit they were infringed, because your protest hinges on them being forced into taking that manoeuvre to avoid another boat. Witnesses are great in that they can say what they saw, but they can't say what other people were thinking / intending. 

Good for me? But surely you think that is me braking rule 2? I see this happening in pretty much every race I do. Starboard boats waving through port boats because they don't want them to tack and close off their lane. You're saying if your saw that in a race you would protest both boats... surely you've seen that happen before? Did you protest? if not, why not? Why is the starboard boat taking to avoid any different than ducking to avoid? 

 

Share this post


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

Starboard boats waving through port boats because they don't want them to tack and close off their lane. You're saying if your saw that in a race you would protest both boats... surely you've seen that happen before?

Are you being deliberately fucking obtuse or are you just a bit thick?

See post 209 where I said  "No, not if it was clear that both boats were communicating and agreed."

The incident I described was a foul of Rule 10.  Strawman arguments are not accepted in the room.

Seems to me that you are spinning.  Weasel words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you also said you'd protest if boat B said ""Don't worry about it, keep going!". Surely that's communicating and agreeing no foul? 

There's no rule saying boats can break rules as long as those infringed communicate and agree.  

At the end of the day, if two boats collide, then a rule has been broken and you can know that as fact as a third party and should protest. If there is no collision, then it's your opinion that one boat might have infringed the other, but without being in the mind of the infringed boat, you can't know. 

All boat B has to say in the protest room is, 'the action I took was not avoiding action'. No mater how close the boats were, not matter what was said on the water, doesn't matter. 

Share this post


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

But you also said you'd protest if boat B said ""Don't worry about it, keep going!". Surely that's communicating and agreeing no foul? 

No, agreement is not required.  If the rule was broken they cannot agree it away.

There's no rule saying boats can break rules as long as those infringed communicate and agree.  

At the end of the day, if two boats collide, then a rule has been broken and you can know that as fact as a third party and should protest. If there is no collision, then it's your opinion that one boat might have infringed the other, but without being in the mind of the infringed boat, you can't know. 

Where in Rule 10 does it mention collision?

All boat B has to say in the protest room is, 'the action I took was not avoiding action'. No mater how close the boats were, not matter what was said on the water, doesn't matter. 

Guilty parties are always claiming that they did not break a rule.  Doesn't stop them getting DSQd.  What planet are you from?

See inserted text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Randum, I believe the horse is finally done 

4081B495-941E-4CEF-A867-DD41F636C76E.jpeg

You beat it very well. Now walk on home like a good boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, agreement is not required.  If the rule was broken they cannot agree it away. 

But... you just said that it was okay for starboard boats to duck port boats if communicating and agreed?? Remember, three posts up, you quoted yourself from post 209? 

Where in Rule 10 does it mention collision?

Where do I say rules 10? I'm talking about what you can state as fact as a witness. If you cannot say the boats collided, you are left with just your opinion on whether the action taken by B was avoiding action or just something they wanted to do regardless. 

If there is a collision, then a rule has to have been broken. If there is no collision, then a rule may have been broken, but the right of way boat has to show they took avoiding action. In the former you have a valid protest, as you can say for certain a rule has been broken and no penalties were done. In the later, whether rule may or may not have been broken totally depend on whether B took avoiding action. You will have a hard time proving that if they won't admit it themselves. 

Guilty parties are always claiming that they did not break a rule.  Doesn't stop them getting DSQd.  What planet are you from?

Obviously. But in this case you have a protest committee weighing up your witness statement that you believe a rule may have been broken based on an intention of B which they will refute, against the statement by A and B, both of whom were closer to the incident and agree no foul occurred. All three parties agree there was no collision. The two parties closest to the incident agree there was no infringement. What do you think a protest committee will decide? 

Share this post


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

No, agreement is not required.  If the rule was broken they cannot agree it away. 

But... you just said that it was okay for starboard boats to duck port boats if communicating and agreed?? 

Boats can duck before a foul occurs.

The rest of your shit is spin after you have been shown to be wrong.  Weasel words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So boats can duck before a foul occurs, but boats can't tack before a foul occurs? 

It's okay for a starboard boat to duck a port boat to avoid collision, but not protest. But it's not okay for a starboard boat to tack to avoid a collision then not protest?

Boats communicating and agreeing when a starboard boat ducks means you won't protest. But boats communicating and agreeing when the starboard boat tacks means you will protest. 

I think if there is no collision, then it is really up to the aggrieved party to protest. Otherwise there isn't anything concrete for a third party to get involved with. 

From Hardleys description it very much sounds like they were infringed and they should have protested. But a third party would have next to no chance protesting the two of them when no collision occurred. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember Mozzy, your just feeding the poor thing. If you stop, it will go away...for a while

Share this post


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

I think if there is no collision, then it is really up to the aggrieved party to protest. Otherwise there isn't anything concrete for a third party to get involved with.

There is plenty.  For other boats, if penalties are not taken two things happen.

  1. the sport they have invested in is devalued and damaged by those who flaunt the rules.
  2. following boats (Boat C) are penalised by placing at least one place down the list in the results.

Boat C has just as much value as a witness to the event as A & B.  Better in fact as they are an "interested party" and they were in a position to witness the event. 

Your attitude of "no collision no foul" is wrong.  The rules are there to avoid collisions by awarding penalties for even the need for the RoW boat to deviate slightly to avoid one.

Your attitude is part of the problem.  You need an attitude adjustment by someone protesting you out of the event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying A was right to foul B, and if I was B, I would protest. 

I'm saying if you're boat C, you won't be successful unless there is a collision. 

Plus, if you're boat C, you'd have to hail protest at A at the time and fly a flag. Then you say you'd protest B for rule 2. But then you'd be duty bound to also protest every other boat on the course who saw the incident but didn't protest, as really it's everyone responsibility to enforce the rules. 

What if you were C and you did protest, but your protest was thrown out because you hailed or flew your flag too late. Would you then retire from the race because you failed to enforce the rules?

I think you're being unrealistic. Not checked, but I think the rules say you may protest, not that you must. B may not want to protest because they weren't completely sure whether they would win the protest. Maybe the protest wouldn't benefit their result? Maybe they just have to get home early after sailing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe maybe maybe?

The example was not a maybe, it was about a blatant foul.  It was about Boat B telling A not to do a penalty.

Talk about fucking spin city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, i don't give you any maybes, the maybes are reasons why B wouldn't protest A. The scenario is the same for you as C, B is right of way, avoids A, tells A not to worry about it. You as C protest both. 

What I'm saying follows on from that. It's not spin. You'd have to protest right there and then. You'd then have to get B to say they were avoiding A in the room. You can have as many witness supposing they knew the intentions of B, but it ain't gonna help you. Only B can say why they took the action the did. 

Then it follows if your protest got thrown out on a technicality, you'd retire yourself for failing to enforce the rules. It also follows that you'd also protest everyone who witness an infringement if they don't hail protest.  

It's not spin, it's not maybes. It extending out your logic to it's obvious conclusion. 

Or put it this way, you obviously feel there is a rule adherence issue in the sport. So I take you've seen a lot of people flouting the rules to gvie you this impression? But from your posting here I take it you've protested each incident observed as a third party? Or retired if you failed to do so?

Share this post


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

Er, i don't give you any maybes, the maybes are reasons why B wouldn't protest A. The scenario is the same for you as C, B is right of way, avoids A, tells A not to worry about it. You as C protest both.  

" Maybe the protest wouldn't benefit their result? Maybe they just have to get home early after sailing."

What I'm saying follows on from that. It's not spin. You'd have to protest right there and then. You'd then have to get B to say they were avoiding A in the room. You can have as many witness supposing they knew the intentions of B, but it ain't gonna help you. Only B can say why they took the action the did. 

Your logic is so flawed that I'm having trouble knowing where to start.  The reason most people are in the protest room is that one party claims that they were fouled, the other says they did not.  According to your twisted logic, all that would have to happen is for the offender to say "No I did not?"  Are you serious?

B is being protested, they do not have to admit fault.

Then it follows if your protest got thrown out on a technicality, you'd retire yourself for failing to enforce the rules. It also follows that you'd also protest everyone who witness an infringement if they don't hail protest.  

How warped can you get?  If the protest is denied there was a clear effort to enforce the rules.

It's not spin, it's not maybes. It extending out your logic to it's obvious conclusion. 

No it's disingenuos spin, that is wrong.

Or put it this way, you obviously feel there is a rule adherence issue in the sport. So I take you've seen a lot of people flouting the rules to gvie you this impression? But from your posting here I take it you've protested each incident observed as a third party? Or retired if you failed to do so?

I have seen a lot of this and I call it when I see it.  Most of the time the people do penalties as they know they are wrong, or want to go home early.  Failing to observe the rules is dishonest, lying even.

See inserted text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If most people do penalties when they know they have done wrong and you hail protest, then why you have such a bee in your bonnet about rules?

I would genuinely like to here about any protests you've been in a 3rd party, you say most, so I take it not all do their spins? 

 

Share this post


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

I would genuinely like to here about any protests you've been in a 3rd party, you say most, so I take it not all do their spins? 

Tell me about your use of recreational drugs ... I am not a police officer.

Share this post


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

So you think that if it's not in the Case Book that my view is not correct?

Are you saying that in the example I supplied that there are no grounds for Boat C to protest both A and B?

Surly it would depend on whether Boat's A and B owners were Rich white cunts or poor brown skinned people?

Share this post


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

Tell me about your use of recreational drugs ... I am not a police officer.

You buying or selling?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Random, we'll all wait to hear once you've taken part in a third party protest where there was no collision between the primary yachts. We'll see then how your rule 2 protest goes. Go do some sailing then get back to us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He won’t be doing any of that soon.

hes sitting around trying to think of something better than”weak as piss bro”

 

60E01AEC-DE2F-4E9E-855F-FE5E900425BC.png

Share this post


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

Well Random, we'll all wait to hear once you've taken part in a third party protest where there was no collision between the primary yachts. We'll see then how your rule 2 protest goes. Go do some sailing then get back to us. 

Whether you or I have been involved in exactly that incident is totally beside the point.  The rules stand on their own.

60.1  A boat may
  1. protest another boat, but not for an alleged breach of a rule of Part 2 or rule 31 unless she was involved in or saw the incident;

Means that any boat that sees a breach of the rules can protest.  No collisions required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

Yawn 

I that what you do when you learn something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just did but aren't adult enough to admit it. 

Maybe that's unfair if you have learning difficulties?

Share this post


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

You just did but aren't adult enough to admit it. 

Maybe that's unfair if you have learning difficulties?

Image result for dickhead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be snow flakes involved, a better word is useful idiots. This stuff isn't just happening by it's self for no reason there is an agenda behind it. I'd recommend Dr Jordan Peterson's videos to anyone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPojltjv4M0 . Another great source of information on this is Yuri Bezmenove. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4&t=45s

Share this post


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

Jordan Peterson's videos to anyone. 

Jordon Peterson makes his living shilling for the right.

Jordon fucking who before he got funded?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

You’ve been outed!

3968325.jpg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Whether you or I have been involved in exactly that incident is totally beside the point.  The rules stand on their own.

60.1  A boat may
  1. protest another boat, but not for an alleged breach of a rule of Part 2 or rule 31 unless she was involved in or saw the incident;

Means that any boat that sees a breach of the rules can protest.  No collisions required.

I never said you couldn't file a protest. 

What I said is that you would never win it. So evidence of someone (possibly yourself?) winning such a protest, which I assumed you would taken part in, seeming as you say you see plenty of other people braking the rules and you always calling them out on it. And whilst you admit most do spin, not all do, so surely the few are protested? 

Boat B MAY protest. That doesn't mean they must. I don't see how you would win a protest against B when they aren't compelled by the rule to protest. 

Boat A sounds like he was in the wrong. But you would have to get Boat B to say they took avoiding action. Not likely if you're protesting him on rule 2. Which is why I said the best cause of action would be to offer to be witness for B, not to protest both boats. 

So you've backed yourself in to a corner. You say you see plenty of rule breaking, and you say you're principled enough to always call people up on it. You also think not protesting is breaking rule 2. Yet, you can't cite one instance where you've protested as a third party (let alone won)?

Are you going to retire from all those races where you saw an infringement but didn't file a protest? 

Or maybe, just maybe, a boat can choose not to protest? And like B choosing not to protest, you've chosen not to protest in the past? 

So, like I said. Go do some sailing, and come back when you've won a protest as a third part where there was no collision. 

Share this post


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

I never said you couldn't file a protest. 

What I said is that you would never win it. So evidence of someone (possibly yourself?) winning such a protest, which I assumed you would taken part in, seeming as you say you see plenty of other people braking the rules and you always calling them out on it. And whilst you admit most do spin, not all do, so surely the few are protested? 

Boat B MAY protest. That doesn't mean they must. I don't see how you would win a protest against B when they aren't compelled by the rule to protest. 

Boat A sounds like he was in the wrong. But you would have to get Boat B to say they took avoiding action. Not likely if you're protesting him on rule 2. Which is why I said the best cause of action would be to offer to be witness for B, not to protest both boats. 

So you've backed yourself in to a corner. You say you see plenty of rule breaking, and you say you're principled enough to always call people up on it. You also think not protesting is breaking rule 2. Yet, you can't cite one instance where you've protested as a third party (let alone won)?

Are you going to retire from all those races where you saw an infringement but didn't file a protest? 

Or maybe, just maybe, a boat can choose not to protest? And like B choosing not to protest, you've chosen not to protest in the past? 

So, like I said. Go do some sailing, and come back when you've won a protest as a third part where there was no collision. 

 

 

3968325.jpg

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting that Morpheus meme. I would never have realised how wrong I am! I am sure you could have gone on for pages with well developed constructive points with real life examples to convey just how correct you are. But ultimately it would have been cruel for you to toy with us mere mortals like that, so you put a stop to the nonsense with that cutting, but witty meme right here.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Mozzy Sails said:

I never said you couldn't file a protest. 

What I said is that you would never win it. So evidence of someone (possibly yourself?) winning such a protest, which I assumed you would taken part in, seeming as you say you see plenty of other people braking the rules and you always calling them out on it. And whilst you admit most do spin, not all do, so surely the few are protested? 

So are you saying that

60.1  A boat may

  1. protest another boat, but not for an alleged breach of a rule of Part 2 or rule 31 unless she was involved in or saw the incident;

is not an enforceable rule?  That what you are saying?

Boat B MAY protest. That doesn't mean they must. I don't see how you would win a protest against B when they aren't compelled by the rule to protest. 

Where did I say they must?  Spinning again?  But I could protest B successfully if they failed to protest after being blatantly fouled.

Boat A sounds like he was in the wrong. But you would have to get Boat B to say they took avoiding action. Not likely if you're protesting him on rule 2. Which is why I said the best cause of action would be to offer to be witness for B, not to protest both boats. 

Protesting both boats is an option C has.  Quite valid.

So you've backed yourself in to a corner. You say you see plenty of rule breaking, and you say you're principled enough to always call people up on it. You also think not protesting is breaking rule 2. Yet, you can't cite one instance where you've protested as a third party (let alone won)?

Doesn't matter whether I can cite instance or not, Rulz is Rulz.   Rule 60.1 read it again you may get it eventually.  Citing is a strawman you have stood up, that's like saying that Rule 10 is bullshit unless I can cite and instance ... try harder.

Are you going to retire from all those races where you saw an infringement but didn't file a protest? 

What infrigments did I not protest?  If you can't cite them them your claim is bullshit.

Or maybe, just maybe, a boat can choose not to protest? And like B choosing not to protest, you've chosen not to protest in the past? 

Any boat that chooses not to protest a clear infingemnt of the RRS risks being protested by another boat who saw what happened.  See Rule 60.1.  They do not have the right to decide when the rules can be ignored.  Also see Rule 2 and 69.

So, like I said. Go do some sailing, and come back when you've won a protest as a third part where there was no collision. 

Cite me where a collision is required before a protest can be lodged and upheld.

See inserted text.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's better Random. Back in the game again! 

I am saying you can protest anything you see. And boat C could protest. But they'd never win in this case. 

Rule 60 is a right to protest. So no, it is not 'enforceable'. It gives boats the option to carry out a protest, but you can't disqualify them for not doing so.  

You say they must protest, because if they don't they're breaking rule 2 and could be disqualified. I am saying boat B may protest, but they also may not. Their choice. 

Not it's not a straw-man. Because rule 10 we can all find examples of protests on rule 10 in a variety of specific circumstance.  I can't find one instance where a boat has been protested for failing to adhere to rule 60. I also can't find a rule 2 somehow tied in to rule 60. 

What infrigments did I not protest?  If you can't cite them them your claim is bullshit

#223: you say most of the time people do penalties. Which suggest they don't all the time. So there must have been times when people didn't do a turn and you had to protest? 

I have seen a lot of this and I call it when I see it.  Most of the time the people do penalties as they know they are wrong, or want to go home early.  

So tell me. Either other yachts always do turns for their infringements in the races you've done. Which is fine, but would undermine your general stance on these forums that rules adherence is an issue in the sport. Or, you don't always protest when you see a rule infringement? 

Share this post


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

That's better Random. Back in the game again! 

I am saying you can protest anything you see. And boat C could protest. But they'd never win in this case. 

Rule 60 is a right to protest. So no, it is not 'enforceable'. It gives boats the option to carry out a protest, but you can't disqualify them for not doing so.  

You say they must protest, because if they don't they're breaking rule 2 and could be disqualified. I am saying boat B may protest, but they also may not. Their choice. 

Not it's not a straw-man. Because rule 10 we can all find examples of protests on rule 10 in a variety of specific circumstance.  I can't find one instance where a boat has been protested for failing to adhere to rule 60. I also can't find a rule 2 somehow tied in to rule 60. 

What infrigments did I not protest?  If you can't cite them them your claim is bullshit

#223: you say most of the time people do penalties. Which suggest they don't all the time. So there must have been times when people didn't do a turn and you had to protest? 

I have seen a lot of this and I call it when I see it.  Most of the time the people do penalties as they know they are wrong, or want to go home early.  

So tell me. Either other yachts always do turns for their infringements in the races you've done. Which is fine, but would undermine your general stance on these forums that rules adherence is an issue in the sport. Or, you don't always protest when you see a rule infringement? 

Where did I say that boats were protested for not adhering to rule 60?  I said I would use rule 60 to protest them not protesting say a Rule 10 in front of me.

Situation where both A and B need to finish in front of C to prevent C from winning the regatta.  Boat B tells Boat A not to worry about the penalty.  The two colluded to ignore a rule to better their positions.  As boat C i have called that out, Boat A did his penalty.  If he had not I would have protested and won under Rule 60.1 with witnesses.

Edit: I could have called B as well but did not.  I could have protested myself but decided against it.

Share this post


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

Where did I say that boats were protested for not adhering to rule 60?  I said I would use rule 60 to protest them not protesting say a Rule 10 in front of me.

We all agree you may use rule 60 to protest something you saw.

But what rule are they breaking when you protest them for not protesting? 

I can't see any rule that says you must protest others boat who break the rules. Otherwise you'd not only be protesting boat B, but every other boat on the course that saw the incident. 

What infrigments did I not protest?  If you can't cite them them your claim is bullshit

#223: you say most of the time people do penalties. Which suggest they don't all the time. So there must have been times when people didn't do a turn and you had to protest? 

I have seen a lot of this and I call it when I see it.  Most of the time the people do penalties as they know they are wrong, or want to go home early.  

So tell me. Either other yachts always do turns for their infringements in the races you've done. Which is fine, but would undermine your general stance on these forums that rules adherence is an issue in the sport. Or, you don't always protest when you see a rule infringement? 

Share this post


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

We all agree you may use rule 60 to protest something you saw.

But what rule are they breaking when you protest them for not protesting? 

Rule 10.

Look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rule ten is port and starboard. A may have broke rule ten. 

Which part of rule 10 has B broken? There is nothing in rule 10 which says B must protest. 

10 ON OPPOSITE TACKS: When boats are on opposite tacks, a port-tack boat shall keep clear
of a starboard-tack boat.

So again:

What infrigments did I not protest?  If you can't cite them them your claim is bullshit

#223: you say most of the time people do penalties. Which suggest they don't all the time. So there must have been times when people didn't do a turn and you had to protest? 

I have seen a lot of this and I call it when I see it.  Most of the time the people do penalties as they know they are wrong, or want to go home early.  

So tell me. Either other yachts always do turns for their infringements in the races you've done. Which is fine, but would undermine your general stance on these forums that rules adherence is an issue in the sport. Or, you don't always protest when you see a rule infringement? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B broke Rule 2.

B colluded with A by telling A not to do a penalty to keep both boats ahead of C.

A broke Rule 10 and B broke Rule 2

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, B told A 'don't to worry about, carry on'. So it could equally be that B thought they weren't infringed, and B is well within the rules not to protest. 

A may have broken rule 10, B may protest, but they also may not. You as C may protest, but in my opinion you won't win protesting B for rule 2 and you're unlikely to win in your protest against A unless B collaborates with your version of events, or you have other witnesses from other vantage points.  

What infrigments did I not protest?  If you can't cite them them your claim is bullshit

#223: you say most of the time people do penalties. Which suggest they don't all the time. So there must have been times when people didn't do a turn and you had to protest? 

I have seen a lot of this and I call it when I see it.  Most of the time the people do penalties as they know they are wrong, or want to go home early.  

So tell me. Either other yachts always do turns for their infringements in the races you've done. Which is fine, but would undermine your general stance on these forums that rules adherence is an issue in the sport. Or, you don't always protest when you see a rule infringement? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spin City again?

  • A did break Rule 10.  No doubt I was there. 
  • B told them not to do a penalty.  The only reason they would have said that was if A did foul them.
  • A was required to promptly do a penalty regardless of what B said and they did not.
  • B was required to uphold the rules and did not
  • B colluded with A to keep both boats in front of C to advance their position in the regatta.
  • B violated Rule 2

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God, I'm sorry I brought this up! I thought I might get flamed for questioning the late legend on his characterization of calling "starboard" as bad manners. I didn't see this perpetual shit fight coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2018 at 4:44 PM, random said:

There should be more Rule 69 protests, it would improve the sport.

Years ago I was luffing on the line in a 26 footer with less than 30 seconds to the gun.  Another boat screams in from the top side of the line screaming words like 'Rooomm room get out of the fucking way you got not fucking rights fuck you!"  So to narrowly avoid a collision I had to bear away as did a couple of other boats just before the gun went.  The offending boat got a great start to windward of us while we were gassed by the fleet.

Now the worst part was that the offenders knew the rules but decided that no one was going to protest in that semi-social event and took full advantage of that.  Worked before and it worked again.  I still regret not protesting.  I was too lazy.  In fact I was at fault for not protesting a competitor who broke the rules.

Should be more protesting to clean up the sport.

It’s ok. It’s not your fault.

When the first respondent (above) admits to a double standard of action he wishes he could go back and change and then goes on and on and on and on About minutiae in the interpretation of basic rules of racing and collision avoidance , it gets a little old. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too lazy. That’s the problem with too many sailors out there that wish the rules were enforced so that they wouldn’t get rolled. That wouldn’t happen with me. I’ll beat you and I’ll do it fairly. If you choose to cheat or push it too far, your going to the room. 

I’m never too lazy to make sure that racing is first safe, then fun and exciting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like many on the fringe of the sport, people like Randumb who have only sailed a hand full of club races in their lives, but have convinced themselves that they know everything think their day out isn't complete with out a protest. We have all seen them, stumping around the bar, quoting rules and carrying on they they have just lost the Americas cup, when in reality if they won the protest he would go from 22nd to 21st in non-spinnaker division F. Everyone else is having a few beers and laughing at him as he demonstrates not only what a cock he is but how little he understands the rules. 

After losing the protest he returns to the bar, still quoting rules and bleating about an appeal before righting himself of and sleeping the night in a pool of his own vomit on the rigging lawn. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, random said:

 

  • A did break Rule 10.  No doubt I was there.

 

You are equally convinced that George Bush ordered the planes fly into the world trade centre- were you there for that as well? 

You also were convinced you had evidence of sea level rise at Currumbin. But then the tide went out again. Your perception and the reality are poles apart on most subjects. Why would this be any differant? Let me guess- the owner of boat A was a wealthy, Caucasian Liberal party supporter? 

Share this post


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

image.jpg

How so? You could write everything you know about the RRS on the back of a postage stamp and still have room for the lords prayer. You are simply wrong because you don't understand the rules. But by all means keep posting to illustrate that.

Share this post


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

How so? You could write everything you know about the RRS on the back of a postage stamp and still have room for the lords prayer. You are simply wrong because you don't understand the rules. But by all means keep posting to illustrate that.

image.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how someone gets 650 downvotes if they are such a good person? Can’t explain that can you Randy??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

I wonder how someone gets 650 downvotes if they are such a good person? Can’t explain that can you Randy??

Easy, I spent time in the VOR threads. I have an acquaintance in the race. 

There are Volvo shills there who did not appreciate my comments.  I said that reverse sheer bow one-design 65s were clearly designed to shovel water over the deck, to generate 'me on grinder covered in white-water' images for the on-board-reporter to record.  I did that after a couple of injuries early in the race.  As compared to the cool IMOCA's that provide great crew protection.  At the time I was +300 is points,

But I woke up one morning to find 278 downvotes from three posters, two of which were socks with no posts.  But that only made me post more comments and the downvoting continued.  At the time there was a limit on each account of allocating -100 a day, but it doesn't take long to get to where I am.

Jack-Sparrow and others continues to manage and shill post the VOR threads and attempt chase off any poster not following the company theme.  And i am still posting there if you care to check.  Recently the downvote limit has been changed to 20 or 25 a day.  I know that because a couple of days ago that's how many I got from him instead of 100.  He comes into the PA threads to downvote en mass.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OUCH!

Boy , I am glad that Jack Sparrow loves me for my wit and charm! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2018 at 6:02 AM, random said:

Easy, I spent time in the VOR threads. I have an acquaintance in the race. 

There are Volvo shills there who did not appreciate my comments.  I said that reverse sheer bow one-design 65s were clearly designed to shovel water over the deck, to generate 'me on grinder covered in white-water' images for the on-board-reporter to record.  I did that after a couple of injuries early in the race.  As compared to the cool IMOCA's that provide great crew protection.  At the time I was +300 is points,

But I woke up one morning to find 278 downvotes from three posters, two of which were socks with no posts.  But that only made me post more comments and the downvoting continued.  At the time there was a limit on each account of allocating -100 a day, but it doesn't take long to get to where I am.

Jack-Sparrow and others continues to manage and shill post the VOR threads and attempt chase off any poster not following the company theme.  And i am still posting there if you care to check.  Recently the downvote limit has been changed to 20 or 25 a day.  I know that because a couple of days ago that's how many I got from him instead of 100.  He comes into the PA threads to downvote en mass.

Down vote. Had to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2018 at 9:35 AM, kinardly said:

God, I'm sorry I brought this up! I thought I might get flamed for questioning the late legend on his characterization of calling "starboard" as bad manners. I didn't see this perpetual shit fight coming.

you need a b00b break

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beshine-3.png

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

you need a b00b break

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beshine-3.png

1 down vote for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

1 down vote for that.

Does this make you feel better?

35922700_10155633523246447_6042888259552

BTW she spent a week sailing with me...

She is recently single

Much more interesting to sail with than anyone the ass clown knows 

On 6/23/2018 at 6:02 AM, random said:

I have an acquaintance in the race. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I had a women crew on my boat once.  While doing the getting to know you bit she said "I recently had a break-up from a long-term relationship"

Me "Uh huh, when?"

Her "Yesterday..."

Share this post


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

Yep, I had a women crew on my boat once.  

Misogyny! I am going to protest!

Share this post


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

Yep, I had a women crew on my boat once.  While doing the getting to know you bit she said "I recently had a break-up from a long-term relationship"

Me "Uh huh, when?"

Her "Yesterday..."

No danger of that happening to me. I was too much of a realist, I could not even get lucky with her in my dreams :(

 

 

E30Q3919.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2018 at 3:10 AM, random said:

Are you saying that in the example I supplied that there are no grounds for Boat C to protest both A and B?

Boat A, fine.

There are no grounds for protesting Boat B. Cf. Case 142.

Share this post


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

Boat A, fine.

There are no grounds for protesting Boat B. Cf. Case 142.

142 is about redress.  Not part of the discussion here.

Share this post


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

142 is about redress.  Not part of the discussion here.

Case 142

The Basic Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules, states that all competitors, including X’s crew, are expected to enforce the rules, but there is no racing rule that requires X to protest Y in order to be eligible for redress under rule 62.1(b).

Logical Analysis

Proposition A:  The rules require all boats that see another boat break a rule to protest that  boat.

Proposition B:  The rules do NOT require boats that see an another boat break a rule to protest that boat if they seek redress under rule 62.1( b ).

Proposition B is stated in Case 142, an authoritative interpretation of the rules.

Proposition B is true.

Therefore Proposition A is false.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Brass said:

Case 142

The Basic Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules, states that all competitors, including X’s crew, are expected to enforce the rules, but there is no racing rule that requires X to protest Y in order to be eligible for redress under rule 62.1(b).

Logical Analysis

Proposition A:  The rules require all boats that see another boat break a rule to protest that  boat.

Proposition B:  The rules do NOT require boats that see an another boat break a rule to protest that boat if they seek redress under rule 62.1( b ).

Proposition B is stated in Case 142, an authoritative interpretation of the rules.

Proposition B is true.

Therefore Proposition A is false.

 

Mate there is more spin on that one than a Shane Warne wrongun.

The rule does not require your tortured analysis.  Read the first line ...

"The Basic Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules, states that all competitors, including X’s crew, are expected to enforce the rules, "

The rest of your post is ...

26608__2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites