Mid

2018 Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race: The Race Committee has lodged a protest against Wild Oats XI

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, sfigone said:

Escort vessel should check AIS of each entrant at least once during the race and do a test DSC alert at some of the scheds.

Excellent suggestion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dash34 said:

Nope.  He is required to take a penalty, which MAY be retirement.  It would be clearer if the rule said ".. which shall be retirement if no other penalty is available".  But that isn't what the rules say.   Perhaps they should.

WOXI should have declared non compliance and awaited CYCA’s decision on the penalty for breaking a safety requirement in the SI’s, whilst also possibly gaining advantage from doing so.

It is not WOXI’s choice to pre empt what CYCA might decide by not declaring it.

This forum knew, even the CYCA knew of the non compliance before WOXI finished and did nothing about it. So the declaration was false and even then CTCA did nothing about it. Apart from a futile protest which they knew would be thrown out before they put it in....

Where do we go from here?

CYCA doing their job: Regular “random” AIS checks. Clearly stated penalties for safety reg breaches, as they do for late paperwork? 

Share this post


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

WTF has that got to do with anything.  Link me the part of the RRS that adjusts for equipment failure. 

SI 22.1. The circumstances of an infringement of the SIs are relevant to (the IJ’s exercise of its discretion to impose a) penalty

I don’t know that anyone is disagreeing with you in the way you have decided they are.

 

Share this post


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

So I'm thinking that Jack was so fucking wrong about the fan boys leaving it is ridiculous.  More WOXI social media management going on here than you can pok a stick at.  Oats just signs the contract with the same outfit managing the Americas Cup stuff, and walk away knowing they have done something to protect wine sales.

But there are some dumb fucks here, so I have to repeat myself

  • The rules require AIS to be sending and receiving for the entire race
  • WOXI admitted that it was not
  • WOXI did not retire after finding that it did not comply with the rules

Pretty simple isn't it?

If as you enter storm bay, you realise that one of the mandatory bilge pumps was not working. Would you retire from the race and continue on to Hobart?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not that simple:

  1. First, the post-race certificate of compliance was signed
  2. Then it was claimed that AIS was not required
  3. Then it was claimed it worked the entire regatta
  4. Then it was asserted that it fried before the start
  5. Evidence shows it ceased working prior to the point at which they claim it was fried
  6. It began working again after the finish and there's been no explanation of how that was accomplished
  7. At the press conference, among the claims made was that this is the fault of competitors who are sore losers and that the team in question does so much for the sport that everyone should shut up and piss off

You see, it's actually fairly complex. I'm sure there are a few more bits of pieces of the actual story and I do believe it's worth constructing a time line. Of course, whether simple or complex, the outcome should be to RAF graciously.

It's far too late for gracious, but it's not too late to do the right thing.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Excellent suggestion

Dumb suggestion.... 

How can the escort vessel  check all boats when some might be hugging the coast whilst others could be 100nm out to sea.

The only way to check ALL boats would be to check them as they are leaving Sydney or rounding Tasman Island and up the Derwent.  

Share this post


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

If as you enter storm bay, you realise that one of the mandatory bilge pumps was not working. Would you retire from the race and continue on to Hobart?

You could.... Or declare it and await the CYCA’s decision on it which would depend on the specific circumstances.

Share this post


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

SI 22.1. The circumstances of an infringement of the SIs are relevant to (the IJ’s exercise of its discretion to impose a) penalty

I don’t know that anyone is disagreeing with you in the way you have decided they are.

 

Read glenn's stuff.  It's pretty clever really, it cuts wiggle room and is designed to cast doubt on what is otherwise clear cut.

Share this post


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

If as you enter storm bay, you realise that one of the mandatory bilge pumps was not working. Would you retire from the race and continue on to Hobart?

Good question.

There are two levels.

  1. your concept and acceptance of Sportsmanship in the RRS if you were the only person to know about it.  Effectively the foul is not known to anyone else.  Your call if you want to lie on the post-race certificate or not.
  2. your adherence to the RRS after someone reported you for the failed bilge pump.  Everyone knows including the RC and your enemies.

WOXI case was the second, and they failed the test.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, hoppy said:

Dumb suggestion.... 

How can the escort vessel  check all boats when some might be hugging the coast whilst others could be 100nm out to sea.

The only way to check ALL boats would be to check them as they are leaving Sydney or rounding Tasman Island and up the Derwent.  

Someone from  the other side of the world could check for the CYCA if they were incapable of doing it themselves.... you don’t need the escort vessel to do it.

How about requiring an AIS track print out with the declaration?

WOXI did a lot of “portage” in the race?

B0AA2721-EE40-444F-B6D1-353EF1BFB878.jpeg

Share this post


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

If as you enter storm bay, you realise that one of the mandatory bilge pumps was not working. Would you retire from the race and continue on to Hobart?

Use some commonsense Hoppy; would that give you a significant advantage?  Rather the opposite even you might realise.

Share this post


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

Read glenn's stuff.  It's pretty clever really, it cuts wiggle room and is designed to cast doubt on what is otherwise clear cut.

Wasn't GB a lawyer in a previous life ? On top of that he must be pretty skilled generally because he has been manager of Hamilton Island for some years now. The Oatleys wouldn't put up with him if he was just a pretty face skilled at picking wind shifts. This is the Oatley version of bringing out the big guns which is often a sign of someone with things to hide.

Alan Dershowitz rarely gets hired by innocent people.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Use some commonsense Hoppy; would that give you a significant advantage?  Rather the opposite even you might realise. 

No, it is a great question.  Potential advantage has nothing to do with this case anyway.

I have answered him ^^^

Share this post


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

For anyone who cares, here is a PhD thesis that characterises VHF propagation at sea. Chapter 2 - about 20 pages of reasonably light reading covers, in an understandable manner, all the weird and wonderful ways you can get over the horizon propagation, and why sometimes you don't even get line of sight.

https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/7444/1/2002SimCYDPhD.pdf

TL;DR

Weird things can happen with propagation in the atmosphere, especially when there are layers of air with different moisture content. You can get 100nm, but you would never want to bet on it if you    it. The effects seem more common in colder air, as the air temperature has a strong effect on the refractive index of air at these frequencies.

Francis,

This is shit hot. I don't confess to being a subject matter expert,  so the parallel research is taking a while, but it's very interesting.

In the absence of any real tangible data coming from WoXI as to the actual root cause, we have to be satisfied withe the bread crumbs and work it out ourselves. This is a great reference piece in that regard. 

Thank you,

Maw 

Share this post


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

I'm not making excuses, but what if the people who have the satellites for AIS had some sort of hardware or software malfunction

So there were competitors in the S2H perched atop satellites or use the web to access satellites not equipment on board mandated by the SI's.  

I'm now starting to understand your reasoning. What about having umpires behind offshore race boats to give rule makers a job?

Competitors next year should make a pact that anyone who feels aggrieved about this mess can  turn their AIS TX off and competitors won't protest. Upon arriving in Hobart they hand in their declaration confirming this. That might drive home the stupidity of the  concept that in a self policing sport the RC can't protest and the party who has breeched is not compelled to own up to things people don't see our in the middle of the ocean away from prying eyes by putting in their race declaration.. 

Lawrie Smith should ask for his S2H LH trophy that was taken away after he flew a Rothmans branded spinnaker outside the sight of land and any competitor, but the RC heard about it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

If as you enter storm bay, you realise that one of the mandatory bilge pumps was not working. Would you retire from the race and continue on to Hobart?

Note the failure in your race declaration and you are sweet.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

"He failed to retire as is required."

Well, I already explained the RULES to you that he is NOT "required" to retire, that is not a "rule," it is a meer suggestion and I believe that meer suggestion ought to be removed from the book, as it confuses people like you!

Before you “explain” any more rules you might want to read case 138. 

 

 

Share this post


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

Good question.

There are two levels.

  1. your concept and acceptance of Sportsmanship in the RRS if you were the only person to know about it.  Effectively the foul is not known to anyone else.  Your call if you want to lie on the post-race certificate or not.
  2. your adherence to the RRS after someone reported you for the failed bilge pump.  Everyone knows including the RC and your enemies.

WOXI case was the second, and they failed the test.

 

So you put winning a race ahead of crew safety! Thankfully no one can sail on your RC yachts

Share this post


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

So you put winning a race ahead of crew safety! Thankfully no one can sail on your RC yachts

At least with his RC boat the radio is quite reliable!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, savoir said:

This is the Oatley version of bringing out the big guns which is often a sign of someone with things to hide.

This was Burkes.first Hobart. Also the person more susceptible than anyone on board to instruction, particularly instruction that involved economy with the truth. Why no skipper and no navigator at the hearing everyone should ask?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

At least with his RC boat the radio is quite reliable!

His RC can be easily jammed. 

Share this post


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

So you put winning a race ahead of crew safety! Thankfully no one can sail on your RC yachts

Hahahahahaaaaa still making shit up I see.

Richards put winning the race ahead of everything, the Rules, Morals, Sportsmanship and Respect of fellow competitors.

Good try, no prize.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This was Burkes.first Hobart. Also the person more susceptible than anyone on board to instruction, particularly instruction that involved economy with the truth. Why no skipper and no navigator at the hearing everyone should ask?

Gee, maybe because someone might ask them a difficult question?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Hahahahahaaaaa still making shit up I see.

Richards put winning the race ahead of everything, the Rules, Morals, Sportsmanship and Respect of fellow competitors.

Good try, no prize.

I'd rather be on a boat where the skipper puts winning the race ahead of everything, the Rules, Morals, Sportsmanship and Respect of fellow competitors, than on a boat where the skipper puts winning ahead of safety.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Before you “explain” any more rules you might want to read case 138. 

 

 

Perfect fit for this one.  I'm still dumbfounded why the PC/RC would not have gone to Rule 69.

For the rest of you ...

"

Generally, an action by a competitor that directly affects the fairness of the compe-
tition or failing to take an appropriate penalty when the competitor is aware of breaking a rule,
should be considered under rule 2. any action, including a serious breach of rule 2 or any other
rule, that the committee considers may be an act of misconduct should be considered under
rule 69.

 

Share this post


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

If as you enter storm bay, you realise that one of the mandatory bilge pumps was not working. Would you retire from the race and continue on to Hobart?

Using the bilge pump was not  mandatory. The only mandatory bit was using the pump handle up yours.

1 hour ago, hoppy said:

Dumb suggestion.... 

How can the escort vessel  check all boats when some might be hugging the coast whilst others could be 100nm out to sea.

The only way to check ALL boats would be to check them as they are leaving Sydney or rounding Tasman Island and up the Derwent.  

Dumb suggestion #100, that was.

I've taken Randumb (temporary) of my ignore list, as he sometimes makes sense, and you have now have the great honour to replace him. Happy sailing, no wait, hoppy keyboarding!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 International Judges have ruled. End of case.

This is more like Political Anarchy, I'm out of this thread.  Adios.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

I'd rather be on a boat where the skipper puts winning the race ahead of everything, the Rules, Morals, Sportsmanship and Respect of fellow competitors, than on a boat where the skipper puts winning ahead of safety.

 

AHahahhah   snort  ... this is getting even better!

Clearly you just described a willingness to cheat along with the skipper.  Nice one.  No wonder you are shilling for WOXI.

Link me where I said I would ignore a safety issue.  Good luck cause you are still making shit up, like your pin-up Richo.

Share this post


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

5 International Judges have ruled. End of case.

This is more like Political Anarchy, I'm out of this thread.  Adios.

Another apologist gone, but these guys just change socks.

Maybe he will have break and swat up on the Rules.

Share this post


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

5 International Judges have ruled. End of case.

This is more like Political Anarchy, I'm out of this thread.  Adios.

Don't let the door knob defile you on the way out.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Perfect fit for this one.  I'm still dumbfounded why the PC/RC would not have gone to Rule 69.

For the rest of you ...

"

Generally, an action by a competitor that directly affects the fairness of the compe-
tition or failing to take an appropriate penalty when the competitor is aware of breaking a rule,
should be considered under rule 2. any action, including a serious breach of rule 2 or any other
rule, that the committee considers may be an act of misconduct should be considered under
rule 69.

 

Perhaps you should actually read Case 134 and rule 69.  There is absolutely nothing here to support a rule 69 hearing, nothing, and please find a rule or case to prove me wrong.  

There has been a tremendous amount of misinformation re the RRS in this thread,  honestly over %75 of the rules "experts" are just plan wrong.

This was an invalid protest from day one, no ifs and or buts about it, anyone who tells you otherwise is confused about rule 60.2.

 

And just to clarify and remove the avoidance of doubt, a boat that knows they broke a rule and does not take a penalty has broken rule 2. (see case 138) so yes it is a rule that if you break a rule you MUST take a penalty.

And to answer the question about what to do if you find out your bilge pump (which is required by the Rules and required to be in working order) is not in working order, the correct answer is report it to the Jury (or OA) and accept whatever penalty they impose or if they don't impose a penalty (either from a hearing or other mechanism) you MUST take a penalty.  

Oh and the statement that there are two hearings for each protest is wrong as well, there is one hearing, and there are always facts found (or should be) as there were in this case. 

Before anyone posts about Rules it would be a good idea for them to read them and include a citation when posting.

Share this post


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

5 International Judges have ruled. End of case.

This is more like Political Anarchy, I'm out of this thread.  Adios.

Not end of case at all, just the end of ONE case. The RC still has plenty of options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If WOXI was to retire or be scrubbed it simply rewards BJ who are just as responsible for this farce for not ponying up. The RO if it had any balls should take LH off the record books for this year. That might get the message through. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

5 International Judges have ruled. End of case.

 

Yes they have ruled, and no doubt ruled correctly. But the RC, amongst others, have fucked up and brought the sport in disrepute.

So not end of case, but Rule 69. You should know better, c u later...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Perhaps you should actually read Case 134 and rule 69.  There is absolutely nothing here to support a rule 69 hearing, nothing, and please find a rule or case to prove me wrong.  

I quoted 138, the one that you referred to and it says that the committee can invoke it.

Now you point to another Rule?

I am very familiar with R69, in case you are not ...

69
MISCONDUCT
69.1
Obligation not to Commit Misconduct; Resolution
  1. A competitor, boat owner or support person shall not commit an act of misconduct.
  2. Misconduct is:
    1. conduct that is a breach of good manners, a breach of good sportsmanship, or unethical behaviour; or
    2. conduct that may bring the sport into disrepute.
  3. An allegation of a breach of rule 69.1(a) shall be resolved in accordance with the provisions of rule 69. It shall not be grounds for a protest and rule 63.1 does not apply.

There is no time limit on this one.  It can be invoked after everyone goes home, even now.

  • Richards signed of an invalid post-race certificate
  • He admitted that they did not comply to the Rules
  • He claimed something that was mandatory was not
  • He collected the trophy after admitting non-compliance
  • He stated in a documented interview that the rules were wrong in this case.
  • He failed to take a penalty or retire as is required by RRS.
  • His media interviews have brought the sport, his competitors and the the organising authority into disrepute.

One or more of the above are enough to trigger a Rule 69 investigation.

 

Share this post


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

[  .  .  .  ]

(A nice description of a much more complex coverage - that of the Tour de France can be seen here.) 

 [  .  .  . ]

Not salient, the Tour De France airborne video is a different much more complex environment with the camera helicopters suffering are from line of sight terrain obstructions to a downlink station and often being 50-100 kilometers from the nearest station. So airborne relay stations properly positioned relay the video feed above terrain and with enough power to hit a ground station 100km away.  Amazing technology, with mobile ground stations covering gaps,  the motorcycle video feeds which are highly attenuated by terrain which must be live, etc., etc.

The S2H situation is vastly different.

  • The start and finish venues are open metropolis major harbors which provides Ground stations for various news organizations on high buildings only a few km away.  All the media have this down pat and cover fires, car chases, etc.  
  • The Channel 7 video helicopter transmits @8-12 watts to downlink stations line of sight.  There is no need for an airborne relay.  Similarly for onboard cameras so until a few dozen miles out after the start
  • 12 (8 digital) watts from a transmitter (within a kilometer of a boat) at a different frequency isn't going to fry anything except your pride if the video feed is revealing.
  • If airborne relay aircraft were needed, they'd be so far away from the video helicopter that their much more powerful downlink re-transmission(?) would have no effect on a boat from the original feed near the camera helicopter concerning "frying" things.

I find your "you are too dumb to understand this stuff" attitude offensive.  I think you're searching for "what if" scenarios, where the reality is TV helicopters are harmless and don't "fry"  AIS Class B devices or their antenna splitters in the real world 99.99% of the time  Yes, AIS can  go down due to power supply, device, splitter, cabling, antenna, lightning problems, but my experience with them (Coastal racing & deliveries from SanFran to PV) is *they always work* when powered up and are a fabulous nav aid, and when racing when not required I've always turned TX off, but they're very reliable. And when they don't work, a bunch of LEDS blink like crazy monkeys and can't be ignored.

The idea that an AIS transciever shit the bricks and nobody noticed  it for two days I find comical.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I quoted 138, the one that you referred to and it says that the committee can invoke it.

Now you point to another Rule?

I am very familiar with R69, in case you are not ...

69
MISCONDUCT
69.1
Obligation not to Commit Misconduct; Resolution
  1. A competitor, boat owner or support person shall not commit an act of misconduct.
  2. Misconduct is:
    1. conduct that is a breach of good manners, a breach of good sportsmanship, or unethical behaviour; or
    2. conduct that may bring the sport into disrepute.
  3. An allegation of a breach of rule 69.1(a) shall be resolved in accordance with the provisions of rule 69. It shall not be grounds for a protest and rule 63.1 does not apply.

There is no time limit on this one.  It can be invoked after everyone goes home, even now.

  • Richards signed of an invalid post-race certificate
  • He admitted that they did not comply to the Rules
  • He claimed something that was mandatory was not
  • He collected the trophy
  • He stated in a documented interview that the rules were wrong in this case.
  • He failed to take a penalty of retire as is required by RRS.
  • His media interviews have brought the sport, his competitors and the the organising authority into disrepute.

One or more of the above are enough to trigger a Rule 69 investigation.

 

You are making assumptions, and we all know what happens to people who make assumptions. The allegation at hand was that their AIS was not in working order.

From case 138:

A protest committee may protest a boat for a breach of rule 2, but it may decide that action under rule 69 is more appropriate, or in some circumstances action under both. Generally, an allegation of an action that directly affects the competition should be subject to protest under rule 2.
 
An action that is considered to be an act of misconduct and that does not directly affect the competition should be subject to action under rule 69.
 
And from the World Sailing Rule 69 Guidance Document:

10.2  The following are examples of misconduct. They are not exhaustive.

10.2.1  Engaging in any illegal activity (e.g. theft, assault, criminal damage)

10.2.2  Engaging in any activity which brings the sport into disrepute

10.2.3  Bullying, discriminatory behaviour and intimidation

10.2.4  Physical or threatened violence

10.2.5  Deliberate damage or abuse of property (including a boat)

10.2.6  Deliberately disobeying the reasonable instructions of event officials

10.2.7  Repeated breaches of rule 2

10.2.8  Inciting others to break rule 2

10.2.9  Deliberately breaking a racing rule with the intention of gaining an advantage

10.2.10  Deliberate interference with another competitor's equipment

10.2.11  Repeating a measurement offence (intentionally or recklessly)

10.2.12  Lying to a hearing

10.2.13  Other forms of cheating such as falsifying personal, class or measurement documents, entering a boat known not to measure, missing out a mark to gain places etc.

10.2.14  Foul or abusive language intended to offend (see below)

Clearly none of your examples are equivalent to those provided by World Sailing, with the possible exception of 10.2.13 but that would be a pretty big stretch.

 

Now please show me a rule, case or other authoritative document which indicates any of the incidents you mentioned would justify a rule 69 action. 

Share this post


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

...the correct answer is report it to the Jury (or OA) and accept whatever penalty they impose or if they don't impose a penalty (either from a hearing or other mechanism) you MUST take a penalty.  

....

Really?  How big a penalty should you give yourself?

This is the problem with this whole thing.  What is a fair penalty for WOXI and how do they take it?  I'm sure that WOXI and probably most of their competitors would argue that RAF would be unfair to WOXI.  But no penalty at all is not fair to WOXI's competitors.

I'm sure Random will accept nothing less than crucifixion at this point.

Share this post


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

You are making assumptions, and we all know what happens to people who make assumptions. The allegation at hand was that their AIS was not in working order.

And you are shilling and you are not that good at it.  Fucking socks everywhere.

Richo admitted that it was not working.

But he still took the trophy!

Share this post


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

And you are shilling and you are not that good at it.  Fucking socks everywhere.

Richo admitted that it was not working.

But he still took the trophy!

Now please show me a rule, case or other authoritative document which indicates any of the incidents you mentioned would justify a rule 69 action. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oats is in good company ......

Iranian Tankers turn it off prior to delivering to Syria .

Japanese whalers turn it off .

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

WOXI should have declared non compliance and awaited CYCA’s decision on the penalty for breaking a safety requirement in the SI’s, whilst also possibly gaining advantage from doing so.

It is not WOXI’s choice to pre empt what CYCA might decide by not declaring it.

This forum knew, even the CYCA knew of the non compliance before WOXI finished and did nothing about it. So the declaration was false and even then CTCA did nothing about it. Apart from a futile protest which they knew would be thrown out before they put it in....

Where do we go from here?

CYCA doing their job: Regular “random” AIS checks. Clearly stated penalties for safety reg breaches, as they do for late paperwork? 

Exactly.

I'll point people here to the post-race compliance declaration: https://cycaforms.seamlessdocs.com/f/RSHYR_Race_Dec

in particular the following multiple choice:

Sailing Instructions and Racing Rules of Sailing
[ ] All SI's & RRS were COMPLIED with
[ ]All SI's & RRS were NOT COMPLIED with as detailed below
 
 
(As for a direct protest against the lack of AIS - that is up to a competitor to lodge.  BJ effectively knobbled the RC from doing anything by informing them directly).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Now please show me a rule, case or other authoritative document which indicates any of the incidents you mentioned would justify a rule 69 action. 

 

11 minutes ago, duncan (the other one) said:

Exactly.

I'll point people here to the post-race compliance declaration: https://cycaforms.seamlessdocs.com/f/RSHYR_Race_Dec

in particular the following multiple choice:

Sailing Instructions and Racing Rules of Sailing
[ ] All SI's & RRS were COMPLIED with
[ ]All SI's & RRS were NOT COMPLIED with as detailed below
 
 
(As for a direct protest against the lack of AIS - that is up to a competitor to lodge.  BJ effectively knobbled the RC from doing anything by informing them directly).

 

job done .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cap't Billy said:

I have a technical question.  If we agree that nothing was getting past the (fried or whatever) Splitter out to the antenna is it possible that just the coax cable between the AIS and the Splitter could act as a (poor) antenna and be transmitting - badly/weakly.  Not enough to be seen on the net but enough so that a boat rafted beside them might still see them?  Or does it even work that way where proximity is a factor?

yes it will work assuming the failed splitter didnt short the ais antenna wires.
Will have a tiny range with such a low antenna height
Makes me wonder if the VHF was working if that was the other device on the splitter?

Share this post


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

I thought that was the line you were taking, a WOXI apologist.

But there are facts in the public domain.

  • The rules require AIS to be sending and receiving for the entire race
  • WOXI admitted that it was not
  • WOXI did not retire after finding that it did not comply with the rules

How's that for facts?

Of course you could always just read glens post. The protest was invalid dickhead, or in other words the RC broke the rules. You should be outraged! Most of them are wealthy Caucasian as well you know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The idea that an AIS transciever shit the bricks and nobody noticed  it for two days I find comical.

More comical is the fault being attributed to the splitter and only AIS TX failing, not AIS RX or VHF TX/RX.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dash34 said:

I'm sure Random will accept nothing less than crucifixion at this point.

Actually Randumb's "nothing less" is sodomy and crucifuxation and not necessarily in that order.

Share this post


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

Now please show me a rule, case or other authoritative document which indicates any of the incidents you mentioned would justify a rule 69 action. 

It is up to the PC to determine if a R69 has been breached but the following Rule matched to the list looks good enough to me.

69 MISCONDUCT
69.1 Obligation not to Commit Misconduct; Resolution
  1. A competitor, boat owner or support person shall not commit an act of misconduct.
  2. Misconduct is:
    1. conduct that is a breach of good manners, a breach of good sportsmanship, or unethical behaviour; or
    2. conduct that may bring the sport into disrepute.
  3. An allegation of a breach of rule 69.1(a) shall be resolved in accordance with the provisions of rule 69. It shall not be grounds for a protest and rule 63.1 does not apply.
  • Richards signed of an invalid post-race certificate
  • He admitted that they did not comply to the Rules
  • He claimed something that was mandatory was not
  • He collected the trophy after admitting to breaking a rule and not taking a penalty or retiring.
  • He stated in a documented interview that the rules were wrong in this case.
  • He failed to take a penalty of retire as is required by RRS.
  • His media interviews have brought the sport, his competitors and the the organising authority into disrepute.

Share this post


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

The protest was invalid dickhead, or in other words the RC broke the rules.

Happy New Year LB, great that you have joined in.

Now tell me, what rule did the RC break?

Standing by on channel 16

Share this post


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

Hahhahahaaaa, so how's that going for ya now?

Yes the FP by Shang just launched has caused a few WOXI fanboys and or nonsensical technical answers supporting WOXI to resurface after having dissapeared.

However they appear to be very small in number thus making your list of such heathens a pretty easy task. I'm coming to the conclusion you would be happy keeping this thread going for years as the only contributer arguing with yourself.

http://sailinganarchy.com/2019/01/02/simple/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How soon after they got to the dock did the AIS start working?

Share this post


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

Yes the FP by Shang just launched has caused a few WOXI fanboys and or nonsensical technical answers supporting WOXI to resurface after having dissapeared.

However they appear to be very small in number thus making your list of such heathens a pretty easy task. I'm coming to the conclusion you would be happy keeping this thread going for years as the only contributer arguing with yourself.

http://sailinganarchy.com/2019/01/02/simple/

Same way JC looks at his watch? 

Share this post


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

Yes the FP by Shang just launched has caused a few WOXI fanboys and or nonsensical technical answers supporting WOXI to resurface after having dissapeared.

However they appear to be very small in number thus making your list of such heathens a pretty easy task. I'm coming to the conclusion you would be happy keeping this thread going for years as the only contributer arguing with yourself.

http://sailinganarchy.com/2019/01/02/simple/

Me thinks you are over stating that post.

They didn't leave, it's just that your radar for some of the more subtle shill techniques is not that good.  They dragged you and shang in to their evil web and you had no fucking idea.  I tried to warn you!

Not sure that you are looking at the same thread as I am, as I am quoting the fuckers, plenty of interesting adult debate to be had still.  It's truly fascinating to continue to verify that the average RRS literacy level of ocean racers is very low.  But I am here to help.

Share this post


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

How soon after they got to the dock did the AIS start working?

My guess is 40 minutes but even if I'm wrong it was less than 1 hour. The AIS came on at 9.20 am and was on for two days apparently working perfectly. WO finished at 8.07 am. No one knows exactly when WO docked but it would have been around 8.30 - 8.40 am.

Share this post


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

My guess is 40 minutes but even if I'm wrong it was less than 1 hour. The AIS came on at 9.20 am and was on for two days apparently working perfectly. WO finished at 8.07 am.

world record time to fit a new splitter :rolleyes:

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Same way JC looks at his watch? 

Mate great race by the way. Had you #12 on Tatts at one stage.

As for your suggestion Cooney is in the same position after last year now looking at his Rolex. You might need to catch up with Richards mea culpa that took 12 months to admit to.

"At least last year we cocked up. We made the wrong decision not doing our [alternative penalty] turns. Comanche notified the Race Committee on the radio that they were protesting . We got to Hobart, we went over to congratulate Jim Cooney [Comanche owner] and he said straight away "we're protesting you".

"My response was "fair enough, that's yacht racing." The protest was properly held. We were penalised like we should have been. It was the right result, and I don't have any bad feelings about last year's race. We sailed a brilliant race. But we stuffed it up and paid the price [of a line honours win and an unlikely to be beaten race record]."

Does this mean we have to wait 12 months for Richards to fess up to this race just finished?

https://www.sail-world.com/news/213456/

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

world record time to fit a new splitter

I think it was early Friday afternoon they first showed up on AIS in Hobart not 9.20am on Friday but could be wrong. Swap out or case of simply bypassing the supposed damaged splitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know as well as i do that it's somewhere in the transom , no way a quick easy job  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go on Random, you can bring an aggrieved 3rd party complaint to the CYC re a R69 hearing against Mark Richards.

All you need to do is follow these guidelines:

12 Who may make a report?

12.1 A report alleging misconduct can be lodged by any person (who need not be a competitor). This can include: 12.1.1 the race committee, or one of its members; 12.1.2 the protest committee, or one of its members; 12.1.3 spectators; 12.1.4 passing cruising boats; 12.1.5 local residents; or 12.1.6 the host club (if not already the organizing authority).

13 Form of report 13.1
There is no definition of what a report is. It may be a written or oral complaint. However, it is preferable that the report is put into writing. If a report is made orally, then the recipient should make a full written note of it as soon as possible and then sign and date/time the note.
 
You will of course use your real name!
 
Then you can go through all your ranting posts re; Mark Richards and carefully read this while doing so:
Notice it is a U.S. guideline, we are on a U.S. site.
 
None of this will change the results of the race.
 
Not a WOXI / M.R. sychophant or fan boy, just want to see if you have the balls to back up your online anonymous bravado.
Added bonus, RSPCA gets to find out who is killing kangaroos with fence palings. YCMTSU!!

Share this post


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

you know as well as i do that it's somewhere in the transom , no way a quick easy job  

You would need to be very naive to believe that this AIS was not transmitting because it was damaged. It was turned off.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Dumb suggestion.... 

How can the escort vessel  check all boats when some might be hugging the coast whilst others could be 100nm out to sea.

The only way to check ALL boats would be to check them as they are leaving Sydney or rounding Tasman Island and up the Derwent.  

Like checking HF at the scheds is perfect. Often half the fleet can't be heard and not for lack of trying. Some radio buffs in Guam are about as likely to be able to check the entire fleet as JBW.  That doesn't stop then trying.

Plus JBW is able to move. It doesn't have to check the whole fleet at the same time. It's got between 1.5 and 5 days to spot every boat at least once, plus services like Marine traffic etc can be used.   The point being that unless it is actively checked, then the "we thought it was on? Must have been Gremlins!" defense will always be available.

So any boat may find themselves called out by JBW saying that they are 10nm away and asking why the boat is not visible on AIS. Perhaps first such call is a warning, second a time penalty and 3rd a DSQ... with request for redress available for extenuating circumstances.

 

 

Share this post


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

It is up to the PC to determine if a R69 has been breached but the following Rule matched to the list looks good enough to me.

69 MISCONDUCT
69.1 Obligation not to Commit Misconduct; Resolution
  1. A competitor, boat owner or support person shall not commit an act of misconduct.
  2. Misconduct is:
    1. conduct that is a breach of good manners, a breach of good sportsmanship, or unethical behaviour; or
    2. conduct that may bring the sport into disrepute.
  3. An allegation of a breach of rule 69.1(a) shall be resolved in accordance with the provisions of rule 69. It shall not be grounds for a protest and rule 63.1 does not apply.
  • Richards signed of an invalid post-race certificate
  • He admitted that they did not comply to the Rules
  • He claimed something that was mandatory was not
  • He collected the trophy after admitting to breaking a rule and not taking a penalty or retiring.
  • He stated in a documented interview that the rules were wrong in this case.
  • He failed to take a penalty of retire as is required by RRS.
  • His media interviews have brought the sport, his competitors and the the organising authority into disrepute.

Yes, perhaps the Jury should disregard the World Sailing guidance and also case 138 and listen to you, or perhaps they should do what they are trained to do and experienced in, which is to follow the rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HILLY said:
Not a WOXI / M.R. sychophant or fan boy, just want to see if you have the balls to back up your online anonymous bravado.
Added bonus, RSPCA gets to find out who is killing kangaroos with fence palings. YCMTSU!!

Thanks for the infor Hilly, that's awesome mate, if only everyone else here was as helpful as you it would be a much better place!

But help me out here, are you saying that it is up to me to do something about it and not Richo? 

Hahahhaahaa. The roo had no rights after colliding with the front of my car, clear port and starboard, I was going to use Rule .303 or 22 but didn't have the equipment.  Had to resort to Rule 3 x 4.   He objected, counter protested but lost.

Share this post


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

Yes, perhaps the Jury should disregard the World Sailing guidance and also case 138 and listen to you, or perhaps they should do what they are trained to do and experienced in, which is to follow the rules. 

Yes it is clear that the IJ followed the rules, good job guys.

But WOXI admitted to breaking the rules.

The really really sad detail is that RIcho tried the "yes but we didn't mean to do it sir, it wasn't our fault!" line.  I mean really?  WTF!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Mid said:

you know as well as i do that it's somewhere in the transom , no way a quick easy job  

Splitter at the transom? It is within a bees dick of the AIS which is behind Nav station panel then going forward to the mast and masthead mounted VHF antenna as per Special Regs. The only thing going to the transom is a loose cable from splitter for utilisation of an emergency VHF antenna in case the rig says goodbye.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Thanks for the infor Hilly, that's awesome mate, if only everyone else here was as helpful as you it would be a much better place!

But help me out here, are you saying that it is up to me to do something about it and not Richo? 

Hahahhaahaa. The roo had no rights after colliding with the front of my car, clear port and starboard, I was going to use Rule .303 or 22 but didn't have the equipment.  Had to resort to Rule 3 x 4.   He objected, counter protested but lost.

Of course it's up to you.

Just as M.R. is captain of WOXI, you are captain of the good ship Pitchforks on Parade.

You also seem, by your constant anonomyous whinging, to be the person who has been the worst done, out of this whole shemozzle, you've probably used up a whole dole cheque worth of bunched up, LANDT filled disposable adult diapers since boxing day, so unfair, being an aggrevied superstar of sailing (r.c. div), doesn't come cheap.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Thanks for the infor Hilly, that's awesome mate, if only everyone else here was as helpful as you it would be a much better place!

More helpful than that would be you being run over by a bus. Singlehanded you have turned what should be an informative thread into a whinging fuckfest. 

Look here comes the 181 Express....remember one foot after the other.

Share this post


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

Mate great race by the way. Had you #12 on Tatts at one stage.

As for your suggestion Cooney is in the same position after last year now looking at his Rolex. You might need to catch up with Richards mea culpa that took 12 months to admit to.

"At least last year we cocked up. We made the wrong decision not doing our [alternative penalty] turns. Comanche notified the Race Committee on the radio that they were protesting . We got to Hobart, we went over to congratulate Jim Cooney [Comanche owner] and he said straight away "we're protesting you".

"My response was "fair enough, that's yacht racing." The protest was properly held. We were penalised like we should have been. It was the right result, and I don't have any bad feelings about last year's race. We sailed a brilliant race. But we stuffed it up and paid the price [of a line honours win and an unlikely to be beaten race record]."

Does this mean we have to wait 12 months for Richards to fess up to this race just finished?

https://www.sail-world.com/news/213456/

I was just stirring Shang up mate!

Share this post


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

I was just stirring Shang up mate!

Low hanging fruit. Take a bite out of the Randumb apple.

Share this post


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

Happy New Year LB, great that you have joined in.

Now tell me, what rule did the RC break?

Standing by on channel 16

And to you mate! Sorry I haven’t been contributing much but with these light easterlys and perfect weather, we have been stuck at anchor in Lucinda Bay for the past 9 days. It has been hell with very poor phone coverage. Instead of googling information about AIS and RRS and arguing about a race I didn’t do, we have had to resort to SUPing, swimming and catching up for beers with old friends. The only consolation has being breaking the national park rules by having a bonfire on the beach each night, walking the dog and drinking piss on the beach. I was going to report myself to the brown shirts (park rangers) and retire from the holiday but like the great MR, I am a true anarchist at heart. But you and JS have been doing great work your ‘the people VS Wild Oats XI’ campaign but the sad fact remains that Mark Richards has 9 line honours trophys and all you have is writers cramp and a throbbing vein in your forehead. Bit rainy today so The bride and I are heading over to my mates 70 foot power cat for lunch. With a bit of luck the rain will clear this afternoon so we can take to dog ashore for another dump in the national park. Might even take one myself just for fun. I will admit I have turned my AIS off because I don’t want my staff to know where I am.

Over.

Share this post


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

i said in an earlier post that the IJ had handed WOXI a poisoned challice  by disallowing the protest. Seems like a few have had to drink from that vessel.

More like "mana from heaven" coming from the RC by it lodging a protest knowing full well the IJ had no option but to declare it invalid.

Share this post


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

You also seem, by your constant anonomyous whinging, to be the person who has been the worst done, out of this whole shemozzle, you've probably used up a whole dole cheque worth of bunched up, LANDT filled disposable adult diapers since boxing day, so unfair, being an aggrevied superstar of sailing (r.c. div), doesn't come cheap.

Thanks for your concern Hilly, you seem like a nice bloke.

And yes I have been fucking devastated by this outcome and the harm it has done to the sport I love.  I have been losing sleep, my appetite is shit and I just adjusted my belt a notch in and this morning my dog came over and rested it's head on my lap, worried about me.  It's horrible.

I really appreciate your concern, but I'm still not sure how this will end up, I mean who would have ever thought that one of the most prized trophies in world sailing would be awarded to a boat that admitted they did not comply with the Rules?  Then goes on to form a conga line of transgressions that in any other arena would have landed them in Rule 69 soup?

Sad, very sad time for sailing.

Share this post


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

my dog came over and rested it's head on my lap, 

Tell your dog mine says hi from a national park.

Fuck she loves this place.

CFD51C2F-CDCD-4621-852C-149D596B1F42.jpeg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Tell your dog mine says hi from a national park.

Fuck she loves this place.

CFD51C2F-CDCD-4621-852C-149D596B1F42.jpeg

Nice dog.  Dingo bait.

Share this post


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

world record time to fit a new splitter :rolleyes:

Do we know that they installed new parts?  I am betting that they shut all that stuff down when they finish the race and tie the boat up to a dock.  It doesn't take long at all to run back down stairs (maybe when you heard that it was not working) and turn it on again - effectively completing the "Cold Boot".  But yes world's record for a re and re of the Splitter while everyone on the boat is hosing champagne! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites