JimC

What happened to the Queensland Catamaran collision thread

Recommended Posts

On 4/3/2019 at 9:51 AM, trt131 said:

I am surprised no one has commented on who bought the insurance write-off for a song.

Public auction over 5 days. Interesting result but hard to argue anything untoward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little assessing bird told me the damage is minimal and auction win was a steal.

Share this post


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

Why?

 

On 4/3/2019 at 2:43 PM, jack_sparrow said:

Dunno about a song. The impact was around the waterline and aft of Bmax....The integral pan/hull structure adjacent the keel would have seperated making for not a cheap fix.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if it didn't seperate? If plywoodboy has heard a story which backs up a rumour that i have heard, does that make your theory stronger than both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do admire your tenacity Jack, taking all comers regardless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2019 at 3:42 PM, bilge water said:

 

PROTEST HEARING

Wednesday 7 November, 2018

2018-19/03 AUS144 v AUS184 nd RF160                                     and

2018-19/04 RF160Äv AUS184

Facts Found

Approximately three minutes after the start on the first upwind leg in 12kts of breeze on flat water an incident occurred.

AUS144 on starboard two boat lengths to leeward and at least one boat length advanced on AUS184.

RF160 on starboard three boat lengths astern and slightly to windward of AUS184.

AUS144 tacks to port and bears away to sail a course to duck AUS184 and RF160.

AUS184 tacks to port slightly after AUS144 and immediately becomes aware of a collision course with RF160 on starboard.

AUS184 slowly tacks back to starboard having not built speed.

RF160 is now on collision course with AUS184 in about one and a half boat lengths.

RF160 bears away away abruptly dumping main and rudder hard over to avoid AUS184.

RF160 now sailing downwind clears AUS184's stern by less than one meter.

RF160 now on imminent collision course with AUS144.

AUS144 has been keeping clear until RF160 changes course.

RF160 immediately collides with the port bow of AUS144 and scrapes Dow the port side of AUS144 causing serious damage.

AUS144 also attempts to bear away further but cannot avoid the collision.

The jury chose not to put any weight on the written submissions of the helm of AUS184.

Decision

AUS184 breaks rule 10 in relation to RF160.

AUS184 exonerates herself under RRS44.2 (as modified by SIS).

RF160 breaks RRS 16.1 and 16.2, does not take an alternate penalty under RRS44.2, and is DSQ.

RF160 also breaks rule 14 causing serious damage to AUS144.

AUS144 also breaks rule 14 with regard to RF160 but is exonerated under RRS21.

AUS184 is not entitled to exoneration under RRS44.1(b) due to serious damage resulting from the incident and is DSQ.

 

split second decisions can really fuck your day

 

 

Is that the real protest facts found for this incident? Seems to be completely different to the original account of the events, that are still published on the clubs website.

Edited by Ncik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2019 at 9:59 PM, shanghaisailor said:

The sensible thing for S to have done is that as soon as she saw P bearing away would have been to return to a starboard tack close hauled course then there would have been no issues with P or any of the rules.

If according to the account below the boats were spaced within boat lengths before the incident unfolded, there may not have been anywhere for the cat to go, all options were bad. I haven't read the whole thread due to all the bullshit, is there a TLDR summary?

 

 

Share this post


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

No doubt with very similar crew

And a handy cash top up for new sails etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Ncik said:

If according to the account below the boats were spaced within boat lengths before the incident unfolded, there may not have been anywhere for the cat to go, all options were bad. I haven't read the whole thread due to all the bullshit, is there a TLDR summary?

 

 

If you read the facts found in the link attached to one of the very early posts in the thread you will see that the first hail was at 100m or 10 boat lengths. Should have been plenty time for decisions to be made and there would have been plenty space for the cat to have "somewhere to go"

SS 

Share this post


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

If you read the facts found in the link attached to one of the very early posts in the thread you will see that the first hail was at 100m or 10 boat lengths. Should have been plenty time for decisions to be made and there would have been plenty space for the cat to have "somewhere to go"

SS 

 

4 hours ago, Ncik said:

If according to the account below the boats were spaced within boat lengths before the incident unfolded, there may not have been anywhere for the cat to go, all options were bad. I haven't read the whole thread due to all the bullshit, is there a TLDR summary?

Fuck me dead this is like a whirlpool of pig shit, where facts are ignored.

The facts as presented to the PC indicated a difference of opinion as to when Beachball on Port finally responded to the Cats hail on Starboard at 10 boat lengths/100 Meters out and dipped to go astern.

Both doing around 8kts or say average closing speed of 3 metres per second each so a collision time of around 15 seconds from the Cats hail that Beachball ignored by nearly one third to 10/12  seconds "at best" by their own report before their acknowledgement to that hail by changing course.

Beachball indicated both vessels on parallel courses with enough time to make lunch. Cat with impaired vision having no idea what is going on at close quarters beared off to accommodate Beachballs lack of acknowledgement, then corrected when they saw Beachballs Hail Mary to pass astern.  Damage to Beachball doesn't support that parallell course narrative and wisked 60 mile away overnight never to be sighted by the RC.

Draw your own conclusions about Denis Connors in a Beer Can Race, enough controversy to hit the the 3rd largest city in Australia's mainstream media and people lawyering anyone who suggests Protest Committee bias where the Beachball owner is the Club Vice Commodore and Mr Cat a nobody.

Then we have post insurance shit and guess what?

You don't have to be Miss Marple to work this story out.

hqdefault.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Fuck me dead this is like a whirlpool of pig shit, where facts are ignored.

The facts as presented to the PC indicated a difference of opinion as to when Beachball on Port finally responded to the Cats hail on Starboard at 10 boat lengths/100 Meters out and dipped to go astern.

Both doing around 8kts or say average closing speed of 3 metres per second each so a collision time of around 15 seconds from the Cats hail that Beachball ignored by nearly one third to 10/12  seconds "at best" by their own report before their acknowledgement to that hail by changing course.

Beachball indicated both vessels on parallel courses with enough time to make lunch. Cat with impaired vision having no idea what is going on at close quarters beared off to accommodate Beachballs lack of acknowledgement, then corrected when they saw Beachballs Hail Mary to pass astern.  Damage to Beachball doesn't support that parallell course narrative and wisked 60 mile away overnight never to be sighted by the RC.

Draw your own conclusions about Denis Connors in a Beer Can Race, enough controversy to hit the the 3rd largest city in Australia's mainstream media and people lawyering anyone who suggests Protest Committee bias where the Beachball owner is the Club Vice Commodore and Mr Cat a nobody.

Then we have post insurance shit and guess what?

You don't have to be Miss Marple to work this story out.

hqdefault.jpg

So you are saying another case of cheating/collusion to add to the growing list?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If you read the facts found in the link attached to one of the very early posts in the thread you will see that the first hail was at 100m or 10 boat lengths. Should have been plenty time for decisions to be made and there would have been plenty space for the cat to have "somewhere to go"

SS 

Looks like the later facts found isn't relevant at all, dates don't match...

Share this post


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

Looks like the later facts found isn't relevant at all, dates don't match...

And some people think being a judge or umpire is an easy gig!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2019 at 6:35 PM, paps49 said:

I do admire your tenacity Jack, taking all comers regardless.

@paps49 it is easy to have a bleat on SA, but substantiate that bleat is a dying art of online Twitter like sound grabs and memes. So here goes.

PS. Though taking on someone like @MRS OCTOPUS on who has a liking for 52' dick is like taking candy from a baby. His conflicted position chewing away is countered by someone like @Turkey Slapper concerned the only growth/interest locally for him in sailing is WAGS, but actually world wide is via WAGS/ Beer Can type stuff where rules or insurance premium type issues etc may kill it.

On 4/12/2019 at 12:32 AM, shanghaisailor said:

So you are saying another case of cheating/collusion to add to the growing list?

@shanghaisailor you have forgotten more about RRS than I know. Go to my conclusion below. It seems Australia is now the centre of the sailing universe in what many now see as an epidemic of RC/PC "biased decision making" all aided and abetted by competitors with influence and they all can't lie straight in fucking bed.

On 4/11/2019 at 5:41 PM, Ncik said:

I haven't read the whole thread due to all the bullshit, is there a TLDR summary?

@Ncik a TLDR (Too Long, Didn't Read) Summary for this thread and the one that preceded it blown up by threats of litigation, you must be joking. You are unlike many of enquiring mind, so this post I really thank you for burning up my time left on this planet as  a TDLR has never been done to date.

PART 1 - RACE DOCUMENTATION

A. WAGS NOR SI

This is obviously the first place to start for any proper interrogation of this incident.

1. RULES
1.1 The regatta will be governed by the rules as defined in the current Racing Rules of Sailing.
1.2 All yachts shall comply with AS Special Regulations Part 1 – Category 5.
1.3 All skippers shall comply with the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 and Regulation. In the event of a reportable Marine Incident the RQYS Sailing Office is to be notified as soon as is practical; but no later than 1 hour after the incident, a copy of the Marine Incident Report is required to be lodged with the RQYS  Sailing Office at the same time it is lodged with Maritime Safety Queensland. 

1.6 Boats shall keep 20m clear of ALL Aids to Navigation. A boat failing to keep outside this exclusion zone may be protested by the Race Committee. Multiple breaches of the exclusion zone at marks may  result in a boat being refused subsequent entry from WAGS for a period of time at the discretion of the Sailing Manager. THIS IS A REQUIREMENT OF MARITIME SAFETY QLD. Note: Section 1.6 is a WAGS NOR/SI Amendment.

12. PROTESTS
12.1 All WAGS races are intended to that of a fun and enjoyable nature and therefore there should be no reason to Protest. Competitors are encouraged to resolve their differences in a respectable manner. 
12.2 Should an incident occur that can not be resolved competitors are requested to advise the RQYS Sailing Manager and a protest will be arranged.

B. RACING RULES of SAILING

Racing Rules of Sailing and RSS Amendments & Corrections (RRS)

RRS Part 2 - When Boats Meet (Page 15) . "If the sailing instructions so state, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS or by  government right-of-way rules."

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

14 AVOIDING CONTACT
A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible.  However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room or mark-room
(a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is  not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room, and
(b) shall be exonerated if she breaks this rule and the contact does not cause damage or injury.

16 CHANGING COURSE

16.1 When a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat 
room to keep clear.
16.2 In addition, when after the starting signal a port-tack boat is keeping clear by sailing to pass astern of a starboard-tack boat, the star-board- tack boat shall not change course if as a result the port-tack boat would immediately need to change course to continue keeping clear."

C. TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (Marine Safety) ACT & REGULATIONS

Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act

Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Regulations

Refer to Regulations Part 2 Prevention of collisions, Section 79 Application of collision regulations and the definition of collision regulations "means the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea published by the International Maritime Organization." (COLREGS)

D. COLREGS

COLREGS Rule 8 Action to Avoid Collision

8 (a) Any action to avoid collision shall be.... positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.

8 (b) Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed shall be avoided.

(c) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close-quarters situation.

(d) Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance.....

COLREGS Rule 12 Conduct Sailing Vessels

12 (a) when two sailing vessels are approaching one another, so as to involve risk of collision, one of them shall keep out of the way of the other as follows:

(i) when each of them has the wind on a different side, the vessel which has the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of the other;

E. RACE DOCUMENTS SUMMARY

1. RRS & COLREGS Priority?

The RRS are designed around close quarters competition and normally have priority over COLREGS for reasons that require no explanation. This guidance for Protest Committee's is clear in the RRS. It is noted it has come about through precedence going back to the late 19th in England where the basis is by competing under race rules a competitor is "contracting out" of some applicable Maritime Law provisions. Note: This precedence however only applies to Protest Committee decision making, not to Statutory Bodies administrating maritime laws, a mistake many on this thread have made.

However the RRS in the preamble on page 15 makes it very clear Part 2 of the RRS governing "When Boats Meet" do not apply if the NOR/SI indicate otherwise. The WAGS NOR/SI clearly states in Section 1.3 "All skippers shall comply with the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 and Regulation"  That Act and Regulation states COLREGS apply in the State of Queensland as administered by Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ). However no priority is stated so in the very least both the RRS and COLREGS have equal standing and that both competitors and WAGS PC must abide by.

This obviously throws up a potential source of conflict so it is necessary to further examine the WAGS NOR/SI for guidance. For instance:

(a) Section 12.1 "All WAGS races are intended to that of a fun and enjoyable nature and therefore there should be no reason to Protest. Competitors are encouraged to resolve their differences in a respectable manner."

(b) Section 1.3 In the event of a reportable Marine Incident... a copy of the Marine Incident Report is required to be lodged with the RQYS  Sailing Office at the same time it is lodged with Maritime Safety Queensland

(c) Section 1.6 "Boats shall keep 20m clear of ALL Aids to Navigation. A boat failing to keep outside this exclusion zone may be protested by the Race Committee.... THIS IS A REQUIREMENT OF MARITIME SAFETY QLD."

All WAGS Race Mark roundings employ "Aids to Navigation." This 20 metre clearance provision literally puts any Mark Rounding and "When Boats Meet" provisions in the RRS irellevant and makes WAGS subservient to COLREGS if there is any doubt about that in the NOR/SI. Furthermore this COLREGS precedence is reinforced by the NOR/SI stipulating a MSQ Report be lodged with the Sailing Office and Protest provisions stipulating WAGS races are intended to that of a fun and enjoyable nature and therefore there should be no reason to Protest.

2. RRS v COLREGS 

Putting completely aside the above priority for COLREGS favouring RRS in WAG Races as outlined in Section E1 above, the following are noted.

(a) RRS 14 and 16 (the Protest ruling) are extremely complex and baffle even Olympians at times and hence the subject of say Case Study #94 all as outlined in Part 2 below dealing with the actual Protest. They are therefore hardly two rules understood by Beer Can racers, let alone race experts. The combination of the two rules is designed to prevent the "stand on" vessel "hunting" the "give way" vessel when a collision is imminent in close quarters racing. 

In the absence of third party witnesses, these sort of PC rulings also fraught with danger regarding the ruling very wrong. My observation is protesting parties take advantage of this. It is noted there were no such third party witnesses attached to this Protest outlined below. 

(b) COLREGS Rule 8 and 12 on the other hand are extremely simple. In a nut shell.

(i) Under Rule 12 the "give way" vessel from the time of a potential collision is always the "give way" vessel no matter (within reason) which is contrary to the RRS 16.

(ii) Under Rule 8 the actions of the "give way" vessel should be positive, meaning that it should result in the reduction of the risk of collision, not aggravate it.

(iii) It should be made in ample time and have regard to the principals of "good seamanship". For instance two vessels ready to collide, but each having regard for their respective vision and manoeuvrability capability. See Figures 1 & 2 below.

Seawind-1000-XL-saloon-bed-Whitsunday-Escape-1024x683.thumb.jpg.7434daec2f70ac3c265fc4a33dcdb148.jpg.9e016bc912efe677ab045c2483e89eb8.jpg

Figure 1 - Sister Vessel to Catherine Mary

IMG_20190412_211305.jpg.bce7c9bd45da4dd9240ce18d6b686f63.jpg

Figure 2 - Beachball

(iv) Any alteration of course always has to be large enough to be readily apparent to the other vessel. Small changes that are not noticeable to other vessels are not consistent with this rule.

(v) Having regard to the above all actions by both vessels with the responsibility greater on the "give way" should diffuse the dangerous situation and the passing of the vessels should be with as wide a margin as possible under the conditions.

As you can see by the above comparison and anyone having regard for WAGS NOR/SI where both the RRS and COLREGS are clearly acknowledged, this incident should not have occured, let alone the PC's ruling as follows.

PART 2 - A BEER CAN PROTEST

A. THE BEACHBALL PROTEST

1. My Caveat

The following views on details of the Protest, unlike Part 1 above being fact, is a reconstruction using a variety of sources and must be treated accordingly. It includes posts made on two SA threads (one gone) and PM's I have received, some for, some against. That said I would not be posting this view unless it had a high degree of validity and was reasonably balanced.

2. The Beachball v Catherine Mary Protest

(a) The PC Determination

The starting point is the WAGS Beachball (Mono) V Catherine Mary (Cat) Protest.

The facts indicate two vessels on a collision course where according to the PC then RRS 14 & 16 came into play. Yet evidence as submitted by Beachball and a narrative as articulated at the hearing and adopted by the PC, indicated something quite different. That was both Beachball and Catherine Mary were on an opposing course, head on in fact for quite some time. This is an illustration of that narrative in Figure 3 below. RRS 14 and 16 are irellevant in those circumstances, and Beachball was at fault.

image.thumb.png.b0788294fa7c7dc7481962877844abe8.png.eb38bfb6ea15c2268c6c1b9a15f17ccb.png

Figure 3 - Courtesy of @Hooded Sailor

The only counter today to that "head on glancing blow narrative" after Beachball doing a 90 degree "bear off" as articulated by the PC is  damage incurred to Beachball. Unfortunately Beachball was quickly whisked away 60 mile south for what ever reason and never inspected by the PC.

However just using a handfull of post damage photos to Beachball the following is apparent. The severe damage incurred was around/ aft of the maximum beam and around the waterline and the gunwhale not even scratched. That does not replicate a vessel running parallel to another but Beachball port side laid over and exposed in a sudden manoeuvre just prior to impact. See Figure 2 above and Figure 4 below.

image.png.892e40a2b7ac61ec3dbc1c9a5c66e5a4.png.d74481fe876adb1873a0361bdea79831.png

Figure 4 - Damage Around BMax and around Waterline not Gunwhale

(b) A Contrary View

In light of the above this reconstruction seems more plausible taking into account the facts in the Protest and two vessels traveling at around 3 metres per second or 7/8 knots.

KM:BB_My_Concept.gif

Figure 5 - Courtesy @Hooded SailorSS

Beachball responded with a clear change of course a lot longer it seems than indicated. On the other hand Catherine Mary despite having all rights under both the RRS and COLREGS and despite being vision impaired there is an argument she should have tacked over to avoid a collision she didn't see unfolding.

3. The Beachball v Catherine Mary Protest Conclusion

Having regard to the above:

(a) Beachball elected to protest despite NOR/SI Section 12.1 saying "Competitors are encouraged to resolve their differences in a respectable manner."

(b) Beachball elected to protest under just RRS 14 & 16, ignoring completely WAGS NOR/SI giving COLREGS equal billing, if not a greater standing.

(c) The PC concurred with Beachball, effectively ignoring COLREGS entirely despite their standing in the WAGS NOR/SI. That is bizzare.

(d) There are now questions asked even over the PC's determination under just the RRS totally ignoring COLREGS despite their standing under the the WAGS NOR/SI. In other words the RRS have been potentially abused as outlined above.

(d) The above ruling inconsistencies are amplified where the owner of Beachball is a Flag Officer (Rear Commodore and Commodore in waiting) and any Flag Officer(s) sits on the PC without excusing themselves to avoid any claim of having a conflicted interest. That perception is of their own making, no one else's.

PART 3 - CONCLUSION

A total catastrofuck. Anyone in the Club (Royal Queensland Yacht Squadron) challenging what has occurred along the above lines is bring threatened with legal action it seems. The sole perpetrator of all this, being the owner of Beachball (Barry Cuneo), tries to distance himself from it all as outlined as follows in the media, News Corp/Courier Mail and mainstream press Australia's 3rd largest city.

"ROCKING THE BOAT"

"Did a top gun at the Royal Queensland Yacht Squadron influence a finding that he was not at fault for a recent collision with another boat?

That’s the chatter among some of the members at the Brisbane club and on a few online sailing sites.

The scuttlebutt is that veteran seaman Barry Cuneo, the club’s vice commodore and a 46-year member of the Manly-based institution, was at fault when his 40-foot cruiser Beachball collided with Tim Maddern’s catamaran Catherine Mary during a social race in mid-February.

But a subsequent decision by an independent four-person committee found that Catherine Mary had failed to give right of way.

Cuneo, who comes from a long line of champion sailors and has knocked off four Sydney to Hobart races, told City Beat yesterday that he had “absolutely no influence’’ on the ruling, which was not appealed.

“I’m totally separate from that,’’ Cuneo said.

“They acted in an absolutely objective manner and, if there was any hint of bias, they would never be able to operate again.

“It’s not a very pleasant situation to think that people who were not there, not even on the water, are working with limited information.’’

We hear that a few parties with loose lips have been threatened with legal action for slander but Cuneo maintained he had no part in that.

Cuneo, who spent 34 years at sea professionally, said the incident was the first time he had ever collided with another vessel.

While Catherine Mary suffered no damage from the prang, Beachball was terminally wounded and sold at auction this week for just $45,000, less than a third of its original value.

Not to worry. Cuneo has got another yacht and he’s doing all right, thanks to his Logan-based Metalcore Distribution business, which makes non-motorised scooters and sells them right around the world."

391895054_IMG_0929(2).thumb.JPG.0047cf177d0e8fde9305cba8ee78df29.JPG.be09af7f214f16423acdedb1eb588f46.JPG

I’m totally separate from that,’’ Cuneo said.

Give me fucking strength Cuneo you and your fellow Flag Officers at RQ are germs in the same bed fucking our sport and your Club to boot. At least Mark Richards has the balls in concert with the CYC to fuck the S2H, you can only do it via a piddly Beer Can Race. That said Australian and World Sailing should be chasing you lot, but they are asleep at the wheel.

And if you and anyone feeling aggrieved want to sue me as you are threatening your fellow Club members for saying something like all this, fire away mate...I have more scooters than you have, would love a open court and you might have gathered by now I didn't come down in the last shower. 

The Sparrow.

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly the sort of incident that judges hate, a true he said/she said situation. I say judges and not umpires because as umpires you are on the water and personally witness what happened and therefore negate the he said/she said element. 

Like many sailing areas (AUS, HKG,CHN, USA etc etc) there are clearly regulations that apply and should be remembered that government legislations are generally known as "Laws" while sporting regulations are generally known as "Rules" and I think we all know which carries more weight . 

It should be remembered that nowhere in IRPCAS, commonly known the 'Colregs' does any vessel ever have the "right of way". The two designations used are "give way vessel"  and the "stand on vessel". Duties of the stand on vessel are mirrored to a degree by the RRS Rule 16.1 and 14 (a). I am not going to go into an explanation of them here, if you are a racing sailor you should know them anyway.

Now in comes the he said/she said element "we did give them room Vs no you didn't" OR "I didn't think they were avoiding Vs we WERE avoiding".

Unless there was/is a ( at least reasonably) independent witness who ACTUALLY SAW what was happening then we quickly are back to the he said/she said scenario - an absolute nightmare for protest committees who didn't see the incident.

There is also an element of "Protest Room Skills & Awareness", such a minefield there are even books on the subject and here we have someone who  brought a knife to a gun fight - a cruising catamaran on the same race course as a boat much better known as a one design racer than for its cruising prowess and likely with a crew to match and perhaps the same skills levels in a protest room.

On the subject of collusion there are multiple potential levels. 

Firstly no collusion whatsoever which is how one would hope every protest is run.

At the other end is, of course, he's my mate so I am not going to find against him which is completely unacceptable and is just another form of cheating - and not just in my book.

However there is a large grey area in the middle where collusion may come in many forms. One is where the PC knows one party very well as extremely experienced and the jury member enters the room thinking there is no way party A would do such and such and this may even be in the subconscious level. 

It could also be that they race in the same fleet, or own a similar boat - a multitude of reasons. 

I remember back in my old club in Scotland (20 some years ago) being asked to chair a PC but it was checked with me first that it didn't race in the same fleet against either party at any time because it was understood that whatever was found in the room, one party was likely to be unhappy with us, and in particular with me as chairman.

I also remember being on a committee here in China where the Chairman was an IJ and the correct decision was made yet afterwards I discovered that the protestee was an employee of said chairman. Now nothing was done wrong over the protest but it did set me to thinking through the whole process again to double check. 

In that circumstance, although the decision made was correct, the Chairman was wrong in not excusing himself, wrong out of naivety not badness perhaps but still wrong. 

In this 40.7 Vs Cat protest, if I read it correct there was at least one flag officer on the PC for a protest involving a fellow flag officer - THAT WAS WRONG if for no other reason it introduced enough doubt in the decision for - at the least - we anarchists to talk about it for 4 pages on the forum.

In a situation like this it would perhaps been better to defer the protest and invite/request someone from another local club (there are plenty in the area) to come and hear the protest. It might have delayed things a little but better a correct decision (and seen to be correct) rather than a fast decision.

In some ways the role of umpire is tougher than that of a judge as the decision making process involves seconds in a dynamic situation instead of minutes, or sometimes hours, in a protest room.

In other ways it is simpler. You are not looking across a table, eyeballing the person you have just penalised ( and you shouldn't be a judge if you cannot do that).

Very early on in 'umpire school' (if there were such a place) you learn to judge the boat and its actions and the only differential is blue flag/yellow flag in match racing or bow number in fleet racing. I remember my umpire mentor telling me early in his time coming ashore to be told he had flagged the world champion for Rule 42. To him he had actually just flagged a bow number - that's the way it has to be.

I have views who was right or wrong, and to what degree, in this case but those views are based on reading the facts found and what has been said on this forum. I wasn't on the water and saw it happening so could not say for definite, I was not in the room so didn't hear what went on so cannot make definitive comments.

As I said earlier in the thread, being a judge or an umpire is not the easy gig many people think it is.

Just my few cents worth.

See ya on the water (I'll be the one with the flags)

SS

 

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the current Commodore is chair of the RQ protest panel but was NOT on the panel that heard the protest. Chair was one of 3 IJ’s at RQ, other panel members were experienced sailors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allegedly only for the second hearing sock! Allegedly the facts found were changed for the next hearing as well! Let's hope this was just hear say!

Share this post


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

Allegedly only for the second hearing sock! Allegedly the facts found were changed for the next hearing as well! Let's hope this was just hear say!

Oh I didn’t know there were two hearings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2019 at 8:41 AM, Ncik said:

If according to the account below the boats were spaced within boat lengths before the incident unfolded,

Bilgewater's post must be about an entirely different incident. I'm not entirely sure why he posted it.

Nothing matches, not weather, not situation, not sail numbers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

19 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

 

(iii) It should be made in ample time and have regard to the principals of "good seamanship". For instance two vessels ready to collide, but each having regard for their respective vision and manoeuvrability capability. See Figures 1 & 2 below.

 

The Colregs cases show that good seamanship also requires a vessel with poor vision and manoeuvrability to stay out of situations where those issues can cause a problem. If there is poor visibility from the control station, then lookouts with must be stationed in areas where there is good visibility.  Any such problems with the Seawind are therefore very much a double-edged sword.  

Share this post


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

The Colregs cases show that good seamanship also requires a vessel with poor vision and manoeuvrability to stay out of situations where those issues can cause a problem.

Yes, while it does refer to the "give way" vessels response timing, the words "each" and "their respective" covers both vessels seamanship responsibility.

20 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

(iii) It should be made in ample time and have regard to the principals of "good seamanship". For instance two vessels ready to collide, but each having regard for their respective vision and manoeuvrability capability.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Turkey Slapper said:

Allegedly only for the second hearing sock! Allegedly the facts found were changed for the next hearing as well! Let's hope this was just hear say!

Slap Slap Perhaps you can elaborate on what you heard as to why you think there were two hearings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was my understanding the post race PC decision was appealed by Catherine Mary, but whereby only the Appeal held over 5 weeks later (race date of 16 January) after the incident is now published on the Club OnLine Notice Board as follows. WAGS Protest Hearing 23 February_ Beachball V Catherine Mary That said I could be entirely wrong.

That aside one thing that jumped out at me is members of the PC and witnesses were not published, which is the norm for reasons of transparency and accountability. That simply means the Protestor (Flag Officer/Rear Commodore and Commodore in waiting) in a race (where under the WAGS NOR/SI 2018/19 Section 12.1 says protests are discouraged and competitors are encouraged to resolve their differences in a respectable manner) and those in control and authority adding more fuel to a fire of entirely their own making.

The fact that they then chose to not use water/an extinguisher marked "reconciliation" but a mallet marked "legal defamation" against anyone in the Club that raised their head above the parapet to put out that fire of their own making is by any objective assessment obscene. You "reap what you sow" in this world.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I think I know why the confusion. The date on the published finding is a month out, the only hearing was 23 January. Pity that the IJ chair of the panel doesn’t correct that. Then again there are numerous typo’s etc right through the findings. I agree too that it’s normal practice to list Protestor, Protestee, witnesses and the panel members in any published finding.

Noting that an IJ chaired the hearing and the other panel members were experienced sailors I think we can rule the Commodore out as a member of the panel.

Share this post


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

Noting that an IJ chaired the hearing and the other panel members were experienced sailors I think we can rule the Commodore out as a member of the panel.

Current Commodore is a member (not Chair) of the Clubs Protest Committee which is a nonsense in itself in terms of "conflict of interest" and quite apart whether he heard this protest or not.

Share this post


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

Current Commodore is a member (not Chair) of the Clubs Protest Committee which is a nonsense in itself in terms of "conflict of interest" and quite apart whether he heard this protest or not.

Not sure why that becomes an automatic conflict of interest, unless he doesn’t excuse himself from hearings involving committee members. There has to be some consistency in this after all at smaller clubs I’ve been involved at it has not been unusual for committee members and flag officers to be on protest panels as there sometimes isn’t anybody else.

Share this post


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

Not sure why that becomes an automatic conflict of interest, unless he doesn’t excuse himself from hearings involving committee members. There has to be some consistency in this after all at smaller clubs I’ve been involved at it has not been unusual for committee members and flag officers to be on protest panels as there sometimes isn’t anybody else.

A potential "conflict of interest" is automatic under all concepts of "good governance" where member "elected positions" are involved. What you suggest means in effect a Commodore on a Protest Committee would be excusing themselves from every protest involving a Club member, let alone one involving a fellow Flag Officer or say a Committee member. They should not be there full stop. The business world worked this governance concept out ages ago.

More to the point this now a case of lightening striking the same parties twice.

RQYS is one of the largest Clubs in Australia by membership and by  boat ownership, so hardly in the small club category you refer to where the PC nomination/skill pool is smaller.

Share this post


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

A potential "conflict of interest" is automatic under all concepts of "good governance" where member "elected positions" are involved. What you suggest means in effect a Commodore on a Protest Committee would be excusing themselves from every protest involving a Club member, let alone one involving a fellow Flag Officer or say a Committee member. They should not be there full stop.

RQYS is one of the largest Clubs in Australia by membership and by  boat ownership, so hardly in the small club category you refer to where the PC nomination/skill pool is smaller.

I agree with what you’re saying but it’s my contention that we have a set of rules for everybody, big club or small. The RRS clearly defines conflict of interest in the definitions. Maybe he should have stepped aside from the panel but it’s only an issue here because there was some perception / misinformation that he was on the panel.

And no RQ isn’t a small club but irrespective it always seems to be a small group of people in any club that do the work. 

Share this post


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

I agree with what you’re saying but it’s my contention that we have a set of rules for everybody, big club or small. The RRS clearly defines conflict of interest in the definitions. Maybe he should have stepped aside from the panel but it’s only an issue here because there was some perception / misinformation that he was on the panel.

And no RQ isn’t a small club but irrespective it always seems to be a small group of people in any club that do the work. 

Sock the removal of any percieved conflict of interest occurs now starting at the top end with IJ's for WS sanctioned events and cascading down to National/State affiliates of WS being involved with PC appointments for lesser events not solely the domain of the Race Organiser. That is not to say PC ruling controversies regarding bias don't occur, but it at least mitigates them.

Club Racing should not be any different where the Club powers that be have an obligation under the RRS to be "cut of the same impartial cloth," having regard to the resources they have on hand. Interestingly it also sits in those Clubs that have published Codes of Conduct" that apply to every Club member, regardless of position.

By any objective assessment this Club have no idea about those obligations, have failed dismally and this incident is not the first time with exactly the same players. When challenged by Club members, they lawyer up.

This sort of shit must stop.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Sock the removal of any percieved conflict of interest occurs now starting at the top end with IJ's for WS sanctioned events and cascading down to National/State affiliates of WS being involved with PC appointments for lesser events not solely the domain of the Race Organiser. That is not to say PC ruling controversies regarding bias don't occur, but it at least mitigates them.

Club Racing should not be any different where the Club powers that be have an obligation under the RRS to be "cut of the same impartial cloth," having regard to the resources they have on hand. Interestingly it also sits in those Clubs that have published Codes of Conduct" that apply to every Club member, regardless of position.

By any objective assessment this Club have no idea about those obligations, have failed dismally and this incident is not the first time with exactly the same players. When challenged by Club members, they lawyer up.

This sort of shit must stop.

I guess the statement about lawyering up begs the question why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TheUltimateSockPuppet said:

I guess the statement about lawyering up begs the question why?

Easy answer to why the "lawyering up"..Clowns with influence and money, simple as that and a problem that has been around since Adam & Eve. However a Club Ordinary Member putting up with shit like this always wins in the end, but they do wish that tree would grow fucking quicker. 

giphy-downsized-large.gif.8c60ea212b1cbdd30af0eed089fb1723.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if a PC member works for/at the club, and flags, correct me if I'm wrong are directors of the club, does that make them an employee?

 

Trt, are you sure about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2019 at 11:06 AM, jack_sparrow said:

@paps49 it is easy to have a bleat on SA, but substantiate that bleat is a dying art of online Twitter like sound grabs and memes. So here goes.

PS. Though taking on someone like @MRS OCTOPUS on who has a liking for 52' dick is like taking candy from a baby. His conflicted position chewing away is countered by someone like @Turkey Slapper concerned the only growth/interest locally for him in sailing is WAGS, but actually world wide is via WAGS/ Beer Can type stuff where rules or insurance premium type issues etc may kill it.

@shanghaisailor you have forgotten more about RRS than I know. Go to my conclusion below. It seems Australia is now the centre of the sailing universe in what many now see as an epidemic of RC/PC "biased decision making" all aided and abetted by competitors with influence and they all can't lie straight in fucking bed.

@Ncik a TLDR (Too Long, Didn't Read) Summary for this thread and the one that preceded it blown up by threats of litigation, you must be joking. You are unlike many of enquiring mind, so this post I really thank you for burning up my time left on this planet as  a TDLR has never been done to date.

PART 1 - RACE DOCUMENTATION

A. WAGS NOR SI

This is obviously the first place to start for any proper interrogation of this incident.

1. RULES
1.1 The regatta will be governed by the rules as defined in the current Racing Rules of Sailing.
1.2 All yachts shall comply with AS Special Regulations Part 1 – Category 5.
1.3 All skippers shall comply with the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 and Regulation. In the event of a reportable Marine Incident the RQYS Sailing Office is to be notified as soon as is practical; but no later than 1 hour after the incident, a copy of the Marine Incident Report is required to be lodged with the RQYS  Sailing Office at the same time it is lodged with Maritime Safety Queensland. 

1.6 Boats shall keep 20m clear of ALL Aids to Navigation. A boat failing to keep outside this exclusion zone may be protested by the Race Committee. Multiple breaches of the exclusion zone at marks may  result in a boat being refused subsequent entry from WAGS for a period of time at the discretion of the Sailing Manager. THIS IS A REQUIREMENT OF MARITIME SAFETY QLD. Note: Section 1.6 is a WAGS NOR/SI Amendment.

12. PROTESTS
12.1 All WAGS races are intended to that of a fun and enjoyable nature and therefore there should be no reason to Protest. Competitors are encouraged to resolve their differences in a respectable manner. 
12.2 Should an incident occur that can not be resolved competitors are requested to advise the RQYS Sailing Manager and a protest will be arranged.

B. RACING RULES of SAILING

Racing Rules of Sailing and RSS Amendments & Corrections (RRS)

RRS Part 2 - When Boats Meet (Page 15) . "If the sailing instructions so state, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS or by  government right-of-way rules."

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

14 AVOIDING CONTACT
A boat shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible.  However, a right-of-way boat or one entitled to room or mark-room
(a) need not act to avoid contact until it is clear that the other boat is  not keeping clear or giving room or mark-room, and
(b) shall be exonerated if she breaks this rule and the contact does not cause damage or injury.

16 CHANGING COURSE

16.1 When a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat 
room to keep clear.
16.2 In addition, when after the starting signal a port-tack boat is keeping clear by sailing to pass astern of a starboard-tack boat, the star-board- tack boat shall not change course if as a result the port-tack boat would immediately need to change course to continue keeping clear."

C. TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (Marine Safety) ACT & REGULATIONS

Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act

Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Regulations

Refer to Regulations Part 2 Prevention of collisions, Section 79 Application of collision regulations and the definition of collision regulations "means the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea published by the International Maritime Organization." (COLREGS)

D. COLREGS

COLREGS Rule 8 Action to Avoid Collision

8 (a) Any action to avoid collision shall be.... positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.

8 (b) Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed shall be avoided.

(c) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close-quarters situation.

(d) Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance.....

COLREGS Rule 12 Conduct Sailing Vessels

12 (a) when two sailing vessels are approaching one another, so as to involve risk of collision, one of them shall keep out of the way of the other as follows:

(i) when each of them has the wind on a different side, the vessel which has the wind on the port side shall keep out of the way of the other;

E. RACE DOCUMENTS SUMMARY

1. RRS & COLREGS Priority?

The RRS are designed around close quarters competition and normally have priority over COLREGS for reasons that require no explanation. This guidance for Protest Committee's is clear in the RRS. It is noted it has come about through precedence going back to the late 19th in England where the basis is by competing under race rules a competitor is "contracting out" of some applicable Maritime Law provisions. Note: This precedence however only applies to Protest Committee decision making, not to Statutory Bodies administrating maritime laws, a mistake many on this thread have made.

However the RRS in the preamble on page 15 makes it very clear Part 2 of the RRS governing "When Boats Meet" do not apply if the NOR/SI indicate otherwise. The WAGS NOR/SI clearly states in Section 1.3 "All skippers shall comply with the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 and Regulation"  That Act and Regulation states COLREGS apply in the State of Queensland as administered by Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ). However no priority is stated so in the very least both the RRS and COLREGS have equal standing and that both competitors and WAGS PC must abide by.

This obviously throws up a potential source of conflict so it is necessary to further examine the WAGS NOR/SI for guidance. For instance:

(a) Section 12.1 "All WAGS races are intended to that of a fun and enjoyable nature and therefore there should be no reason to Protest. Competitors are encouraged to resolve their differences in a respectable manner."

(b) Section 1.3 In the event of a reportable Marine Incident... a copy of the Marine Incident Report is required to be lodged with the RQYS  Sailing Office at the same time it is lodged with Maritime Safety Queensland

(c) Section 1.6 "Boats shall keep 20m clear of ALL Aids to Navigation. A boat failing to keep outside this exclusion zone may be protested by the Race Committee.... THIS IS A REQUIREMENT OF MARITIME SAFETY QLD."

All WAGS Race Mark roundings employ "Aids to Navigation." This 20 metre clearance provision literally puts any Mark Rounding and "When Boats Meet" provisions in the RRS irellevant and makes WAGS subservient to COLREGS if there is any doubt about that in the NOR/SI. Furthermore this COLREGS precedence is reinforced by the NOR/SI stipulating a MSQ Report be lodged with the Sailing Office and Protest provisions stipulating WAGS races are intended to that of a fun and enjoyable nature and therefore there should be no reason to Protest.

2. RRS v COLREGS 

Putting completely aside the above priority for COLREGS favouring RRS in WAG Races as outlined in Section E1 above, the following are noted.

(a) RRS 14 and 16 (the Protest ruling) are extremely complex and baffle even Olympians at times and hence the subject of say Case Study #94 all as outlined in Part 2 below dealing with the actual Protest. They are therefore hardly two rules understood by Beer Can racers, let alone race experts. The combination of the two rules is designed to prevent the "stand on" vessel "hunting" the "give way" vessel when a collision is imminent in close quarters racing. 

In the absence of third party witnesses, these sort of PC rulings also fraught with danger regarding the ruling very wrong. My observation is protesting parties take advantage of this. It is noted there were no such third party witnesses attached to this Protest outlined below. 

(b) COLREGS Rule 8 and 12 on the other hand are extremely simple. In a nut shell.

(i) Under Rule 12 the "give way" vessel from the time of a potential collision is always the "give way" vessel no matter (within reason) which is contrary to the RRS 16.

(ii) Under Rule 8 the actions of the "give way" vessel should be positive, meaning that it should result in the reduction of the risk of collision, not aggravate it.

(iii) It should be made in ample time and have regard to the principals of "good seamanship". For instance two vessels ready to collide, but each having regard for their respective vision and manoeuvrability capability. See Figures 1 & 2 below.

Seawind-1000-XL-saloon-bed-Whitsunday-Escape-1024x683.thumb.jpg.7434daec2f70ac3c265fc4a33dcdb148.jpg.9e016bc912efe677ab045c2483e89eb8.jpg

Figure 1 - Sister Vessel to Catherine Mary

IMG_20190412_211305.jpg.bce7c9bd45da4dd9240ce18d6b686f63.jpg

Figure 2 - Beachball

(iv) Any alteration of course always has to be large enough to be readily apparent to the other vessel. Small changes that are not noticeable to other vessels are not consistent with this rule.

(v) Having regard to the above all actions by both vessels with the responsibility greater on the "give way" should diffuse the dangerous situation and the passing of the vessels should be with as wide a margin as possible under the conditions.

As you can see by the above comparison and anyone having regard for WAGS NOR/SI where both the RRS and COLREGS are clearly acknowledged, this incident should not have occured, let alone the PC's ruling as follows.

PART 2 - A BEER CAN PROTEST

A. THE BEACHBALL PROTEST

1. My Caveat

The following views on details of the Protest, unlike Part 1 above being fact, is a reconstruction using a variety of sources and must be treated accordingly. It includes posts made on two SA threads (one gone) and PM's I have received, some for, some against. That said I would not be posting this view unless it had a high degree of validity and was reasonably balanced.

2. The Beachball v Catherine Mary Protest

(a) The PC Determination

The starting point is the WAGS Beachball (Mono) V Catherine Mary (Cat) Protest.

The facts indicate two vessels on a collision course where according to the PC then RRS 14 & 16 came into play. Yet evidence as submitted by Beachball and a narrative as articulated at the hearing and adopted by the PC, indicated something quite different. That was both Beachball and Catherine Mary were on an opposing course, head on in fact for quite some time. This is an illustration of that narrative in Figure 3 below. RRS 14 and 16 are irellevant in those circumstances, and Beachball was at fault.

image.thumb.png.b0788294fa7c7dc7481962877844abe8.png.eb38bfb6ea15c2268c6c1b9a15f17ccb.png

Figure 3 - Courtesy of @Hooded Sailor

The only counter today to that "head on glancing blow narrative" after Beachball doing a 90 degree "bear off" as articulated by the PC is  damage incurred to Beachball. Unfortunately Beachball was quickly whisked away 60 mile south for what ever reason and never inspected by the PC.

However just using a handfull of post damage photos to Beachball the following is apparent. The severe damage incurred was around/ aft of the maximum beam and around the waterline and the gunwhale not even scratched. That does not replicate a vessel running parallel to another but Beachball port side laid over and exposed in a sudden manoeuvre just prior to impact. See Figure 2 above and Figure 4 below.

image.png.892e40a2b7ac61ec3dbc1c9a5c66e5a4.png.d74481fe876adb1873a0361bdea79831.png

Figure 4 - Damage Around BMax and around Waterline not Gunwhale

(b) A Contrary View

In light of the above this reconstruction seems more plausible taking into account the facts in the Protest and two vessels traveling at around 3 metres per second or 7/8 knots.

KM:BB_My_Concept.gif

Figure 5 - Courtesy @Hooded SailorSS

Beachball responded with a clear change of course a lot longer it seems than indicated. On the other hand Catherine Mary despite having all rights under both the RRS and COLREGS and despite being vision impaired there is an argument she should have tacked over to avoid a collision she didn't see unfolding.

3. The Beachball v Catherine Mary Protest Conclusion

Having regard to the above:

(a) Beachball elected to protest despite NOR/SI Section 12.1 saying "Competitors are encouraged to resolve their differences in a respectable manner."

(b) Beachball elected to protest under just RRS 14 & 16, ignoring completely WAGS NOR/SI giving COLREGS equal billing, if not a greater standing.

(c) The PC concurred with Beachball, effectively ignoring COLREGS entirely despite their standing in the WAGS NOR/SI. That is bizzare.

(d) There are now questions asked even over the PC's determination under just the RRS totally ignoring COLREGS despite their standing under the the WAGS NOR/SI. In other words the RRS have been potentially abused as outlined above.

(d) The above ruling inconsistencies are amplified where the owner of Beachball is a Flag Officer (Rear Commodore and Commodore in waiting) and any Flag Officer(s) sits on the PC without excusing themselves to avoid any claim of having a conflicted interest. That perception is of their own making, no one else's.

PART 3 - CONCLUSION

A total catastrofuck. Anyone in the Club (Royal Queensland Yacht Squadron) challenging what has occurred along the above lines is bring threatened with legal action it seems. The sole perpetrator of all this, being the owner of Beachball (Barry Cuneo), tries to distance himself from it all as outlined as follows in the media, News Corp/Courier Mail and mainstream press Australia's 3rd largest city.

"ROCKING THE BOAT"

"Did a top gun at the Royal Queensland Yacht Squadron influence a finding that he was not at fault for a recent collision with another boat?

That’s the chatter among some of the members at the Brisbane club and on a few online sailing sites.

The scuttlebutt is that veteran seaman Barry Cuneo, the club’s vice commodore and a 46-year member of the Manly-based institution, was at fault when his 40-foot cruiser Beachball collided with Tim Maddern’s catamaran Catherine Mary during a social race in mid-February.

But a subsequent decision by an independent four-person committee found that Catherine Mary had failed to give right of way.

Cuneo, who comes from a long line of champion sailors and has knocked off four Sydney to Hobart races, told City Beat yesterday that he had “absolutely no influence’’ on the ruling, which was not appealed.

“I’m totally separate from that,’’ Cuneo said.

“They acted in an absolutely objective manner and, if there was any hint of bias, they would never be able to operate again.

“It’s not a very pleasant situation to think that people who were not there, not even on the water, are working with limited information.’’

We hear that a few parties with loose lips have been threatened with legal action for slander but Cuneo maintained he had no part in that.

Cuneo, who spent 34 years at sea professionally, said the incident was the first time he had ever collided with another vessel.

While Catherine Mary suffered no damage from the prang, Beachball was terminally wounded and sold at auction this week for just $45,000, less than a third of its original value.

Not to worry. Cuneo has got another yacht and he’s doing all right, thanks to his Logan-based Metalcore Distribution business, which makes non-motorised scooters and sells them right around the world."

391895054_IMG_0929(2).thumb.JPG.0047cf177d0e8fde9305cba8ee78df29.JPG.be09af7f214f16423acdedb1eb588f46.JPG

I’m totally separate from that,’’ Cuneo said.

Give me fucking strength Cuneo you and your fellow Flag Officers at RQ are germs in the same bed fucking our sport and your Club to boot. At least Mark Richards has the balls in concert with the CYC to fuck the S2H, you can only do it via a piddly Beer Can Race. That said Australian and World Sailing should be chasing you lot, but they are asleep at the wheel.

And if you and anyone feeling aggrieved want to sue me as you are threatening your fellow Club members for saying something like all this, fire away mate...I have more scooters than you have, would love a open court and you might have gathered by now I didn't come down in the last shower. 

The Sparrow.

 

Not worth a response but for the lesson in libel and slander and worth saving the thread for that.  No wonder the sport of sailing is dying when brain dead trolls with no life and sock puppets with no balls endlessly attack good people.  Why would someone who teaches sailing have a sock dedicated to destroying the same sport they make their living at?

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

Not worth a response but for the lesson in libel and slander and worth saving the thread for that... 

Why would someone who teaches sailing have a sock dedicated to destroying the same sport they make their living at?

Mate I'm sweet as stated. Hope that last paragraph apparently joining someone else, doesn't come back to haunt you though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know what you mean and don't care.  People like you destroy the sport. Go read the Chucktown Fuckery posts to learn what it is to support the sport from sailors who have a life.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

Now if a PC member works for/at the club, and flags, correct me if I'm wrong are directors of the club, does that make them an employee?

 

Trt, are you sure about that?

Slap slap directors are not employees.

for/at I think you refer to someone who owns their own business that is located on club grounds and is engaged by the club as a contractor - so no not an employee

Share this post


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

Don't know what you mean and don't care

Really don't know what I mean? LMI you were very explicit doing all but name someone else, presumably local (who you obviously have an axe to grind), as me. 

16 hours ago, LMI said:

Why would someone who teaches sailing have a sock dedicated to destroying the same sport they make their living at?

 

6 hours ago, LMI said:

People like you destroy the sport.

Really LMI? So people at any bar or virtual one  like this who engage over incidents involving disturbing use and application of the rules are destroying the sport? Furthermore even if these incidents extend to lawyering up and securing top billing in the popular press, everyone should just turn a blind eye and allow those responsible to melt away unscathed?

That is hardly a recipe for discouraging repetition either from those involved, anyone else following their lead or encouraging WS affiliates to start treating seriously incidents that bring the sport into disrepute.

LMI you really need to polish up on the concepts of "cause and effect", or do you jump out of bed before the alarm goes off? Also statistically challenged it seems if second incident, same suspect's doesn't ring an alarm bell.

The realty is this incident is especially deserved of the attention it gets as Beer Can and Twilight style racing is one of only a few sailing categories showing some green shoots with participation numbers holding up or increasing around the world. This style of racing is a nursery for more competitive keelboat racing categories to improve their participation numbers so they don't die a death of a thousand cuts as has been happening now for over two decades.

By the way I don't expect you to get any of this as your position like Mrs Octopus is one of defacto spokepersons for those in the firing line. However I posted it just so others are not inclined towards your myoptic and jaundiced view. A view where clearly the health of the sport is not your priority as claimed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s hard to decide which is more entertaining; Aussie sailing or British government of late. 

Share this post


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

It’s hard to decide which is more entertaining; Aussie sailing or British government of late. 

This is serious shit, the British government is just a joke

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So sock, if the perceived elite who can over rule voted in comities decisions for their best interests, could they not have power over "contractors"?

 

Oh, and jack mentioned same incident two years running by same players, and trouble is, both incidents had more than the obvious similarities, some of these players need more conditioning in an art form which is an integral part to yachting in Queensland, a tradition passed down by generations of sailors in these sacred muddy waters of south east Queensland!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Turkey Slapper said:

So sock, if the perceived elite who can over rule voted in comities decisions for their best interests, could they not have power over "contractors"?

Slap slap for the sake of clarity only the flags and other board members are directors of the company therefore they are the only ones who can make decisions for the company @LB 15 could confirm this. Most yacht club committees provide advisory advice only through the chair to the board.

 

22 minutes ago, Turkey Slapper said:

Oh, and jack mentioned same incident two years running by same players, and trouble is, both incidents had more than the obvious similarities, some of these players need more conditioning in an art form which is an integral part to yachting in Queensland, a tradition passed down by generations of sailors in these sacred muddy waters of south east Queensland!!!!!

I presume that @jack_sparrow is referring to the rumble in Rocky of which I’m not across exactly what happened or who exactly was involved so can’t comment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so it’s time to come clean. Many people are wondering who I am, both on Sailing Anarchy and Facebook. Lately a few people have been taking wild guesses but the truth is they are all a long way from the truth. Given that some are courting libel against people who I’m not I thought the experiment has gone far enough. I’ve followed SA a bit in the past because I enjoyed sailing (not enough time and too expensive for uni students) but have not had a forum profile until now.

my name is David and I am a university student writing a paper on trolls and how they can influence social media, I’m not a member of any yacht club although I did team race a few years ago and my father is. I picked a couple of threads on SA that I knew a little about, read them did some research and created what I though was the most obvious troll name in history - apparently not.

as well as trolling sailing anarchy I set up a Facebook account and despite the fact Facebook made me change my name from theultimate sockpuppet to Jock McSock in under a month I picked up in excess of 500 friends - none of whom I actually know!!!!!

i found a closed members group and asked to join - accepted so I tried numerous others - all accepted!!!!!!

amongst my ‘friends’ are yacht club flag officers, high profile sailors, lawyers, accountants, politicians (let’s face it they friend anybody) and others from across the world.

So what have I proved

1. Anybody with an axe to grind can have a voice on social media even if they aren’t directly involved

2. Many people will ‘friend’ someone even when they have no idea who they actually are

3. You only have to pretend you know someone for them to share information with you

4. Being a troll is actually harder than it looks

5. Now that my assignment is finished I’ve got better things to do with my time....

Sock OUT!!!!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sock OUT!!!!

Well done fock sock, but I still think you are LB15.

And I am still gone sue you anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry about the confusion in an already confusing thread my post was of a different protest just to highlight where another starboard boat with little to no opportunity got scrubbed and had to pay the bill due to the others action is all.

 

Share this post


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

Ok so it’s time to come clean. Many people are wondering who I am, both on Sailing Anarchy and Facebook. Lately a few people have been taking wild guesses but the truth is they are all a long way from the truth. Given that some are courting libel against people who I’m not I thought the experiment has gone far enough. I’ve followed SA a bit in the past because I enjoyed sailing (not enough time and too expensive for uni students) but have not had a forum profile until now.

my name is David and I am a university student writing a paper on trolls and how they can influence social media, I’m not a member of any yacht club although I did team race a few years ago and my father is. I picked a couple of threads on SA that I knew a little about, read them did some research and created what I though was the most obvious troll name in history - apparently not.

as well as trolling sailing anarchy I set up a Facebook account and despite the fact Facebook made me change my name from theultimate sockpuppet to Jock McSock in under a month I picked up in excess of 500 friends - none of whom I actually know!!!!!

i found a closed members group and asked to join - accepted so I tried numerous others - all accepted!!!!!!

amongst my ‘friends’ are yacht club flag officers, high profile sailors, lawyers, accountants, politicians (let’s face it they friend anybody) and others from across the world.

So what have I proved

1. Anybody with an axe to grind can have a voice on social media even if they aren’t directly involved

2. Many people will ‘friend’ someone even when they have no idea who they actually are

3. You only have to pretend you know someone for them to share information with you

4. Being a troll is actually harder than it looks

5. Now that my assignment is finished I’ve got better things to do with my time....

Sock OUT!!!!

 

Don't believe a thing he says!

 

I'm David, and I'm the real ultimate sock puppet!!!! 

 

Well that's the story I heard anyway! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone attend the happy rock briefing? 

 

On another note, for all that have been watching for the final price of the puzzle in the trilogy, watch this space!!!!!

 

You can't make this shit up!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2019 at 5:18 AM, Curious said:

 

The Colregs cases show that good seamanship also requires a vessel with poor vision and manoeuvrability to stay out of situations where those issues can cause a problem. If there is poor visibility from the control station, then lookouts with must be stationed in areas where there is good visibility.  Any such problems with the Seawind are therefore very much a double-edged sword.  

someone needs to tell that to the us navy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2019 at 2:51 PM, bilge water said:

sorry about the confusion in an already confusing thread my post was of a different protest just to highlight where another starboard boat with little to no opportunity got scrubbed and had to pay the bill due to the others action is all.

 

I hope your other 4 posts were less confusing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really glad nobody has bumped this back to the top with any inane comments, time to go sailing!!:ph34r:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now