Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

2Newts

NOR

Recommended Posts

I know this is already being covered in other threads, but I believe it is important enough to have its own.

 

Today's release is here:

http://www.alinghi.com/multimedia/docs/200...ice_of_Race.pdf

 

Lots to discuss, so let's dissect!!

 

On my first read, I picked up a few notable points.

 

1.5© - A person leaving the boat accidentally MAY be returned to the boat, which seems to indicate that they do not NEED to be returned and, more importantly, that the yacht does not need to recover that person itself. Recall the rip in the tramp in SD ... if such a thing were to happen, the support boat could pick up the crew member and the race boat could continue. Personally, I think this is a good rule, but it sure is different from any regatta I've ever been in.

 

1.8© - Keep dreaming, Ernesto. LE will never agree to any of your documents which, as a precondition, make him drop his ability to bring suit against you. This has been tried so many times, with the original protocol and the recent Australia idea being just two examples. Why, if LE has never agreed to this before, do you think he will now?

 

6.7 Wind and Wave limits. First, these are ridiculously low (15kts, 1meter!!!). This was a long discussion in another thread, and I do not think it will survive a court challenge. Limits need to be mutually agreed to, and I just do not see LE agreeing to anything this early or this extreme. In the words of a former president "Not. Gonna. Happen."

 

13. Berthing - Is this a sneaky way for EB to make it hard on BMWO to berth in such a way as is necessary for the wing??

 

14. Communications - This one is fascinating. I am completely in favor of it as a rule, and totally understand why EB might think that a team financed by a software mogul might have an advantage in the field of communications. BUT, I do not see it surviving challenge. If the AC is truly an open design competition, if engines cannot be restricted, I don't see how you can restrict the use of high tech communications equipment that might, for example, be able to read a wind field over a 400 square mile area in real time.

 

OK, I know there are more. So let's get them all out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6.6 Scheduled Warning Signal Time - SNG says it will be sometime between 0800 and 1630. Sunrise is 0800, so definitely a good idea not to do the warning before sunup. But 1630? How? Assume the wind dies and the race goes towards its 7 hour limit - that means a finish at 2330!!?? And when does the sun set? 1830. This section is just illogical. Who was charged with looking up the time of sunrise/sunset on the SNG competition committee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is obvious that SNG is taking the position that "not to exceed" only applies to them, which is of course incorrect, but yet again inviting litigation. This has been ruled on in court but the dumbfuckinstien lawyers have modified there view of it...or so it seems.

 

7.2 The Measurer shall determine the following:

(a) Whether the boat representing SNG, has a length on load waterline

of between 44 feet and 90 feet if it has one mast, and 80 feet and

115 feet if it has more than one mast;

(B) Whether the boat representing the GGYC conforms to the

description and has dimensions specified in its Notice of Challenge

dated 11 July 2007 and its Certificate of Documentation provided to

SNG by GGYC as its “customs house registry” namely;

(i) it is the “USA”;

(ii) has a rig of a single mast and is sloop rigged;

(iii) a length on load waterline of 90 feet;

7

(iv) a beam at load waterline of 90 feet;

(v) an extreme beam of 90 feet;

(vi) a draught of water (hull draught) of 3 feet; and

(vii) a draught of water (boards down) of 20 feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with the bold part, below

 

7.7 No alterations may be made to a boat after measurement, which may

materially alter its measured dimensions without being reported to the

Measurer who shall determine if the boat is to be remeasured or not. For

the avoidance of doubt the taking on or the discharge of water ballast by a

boat shall not be an alternation requiring reporting to the Measurer or

require remeasurement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good luck with the bold part, below

 

7.7 No alterations may be made to a boat after measurement, which may

materially alter its measured dimensions without being reported to the

Measurer who shall determine if the boat is to be remeasured or not. For

the avoidance of doubt the taking on or the discharge of water ballast by a

boat shall not be an alternation requiring reporting to the Measurer or

require remeasurement.

 

I'll wager that part is rendered obsolete within the week with the release of the expert panel's guidance to the judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i see many illegal issues on the nor

 

the ISAF media rights claims are bogus-and ISAF cant license them to anyone-

 

and organizing authority snf /acm / crooks unlimited dont own them either-

post-40325-1257870784_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6.7 Wind and Wave limits.

 

SNG writes in this lunatic low limit (still laughing at that one), but then they also write in clear English how the rules are applied:

 

1.2 Any conflict in the rules shall be resolved by (paraphrasing) applying the rules in order:

-DOG

-NOR

-SIs

-ISAF RSS

 

And the DOG clearly states that the challenger names the days of the races. We've flogged this horse so many times it has come back to life and died again, and again, and again.

 

But it looks that SNG does not see a conflict between the challenger's right to declare the dates and the defender's placing of a wind/sea limit in their NOR. How can they not see that conflict? Seriously, how can they? They are all well educated, but keep throwing up rules and decisions that in plain language conflict with the deed.

 

So, what is GGYC's relief on this one, assuming they do not agree to the limits? Do they have to go back to JSK? Or can they take this one before any racing to the jury? Or do they have to wait for SNG to cancel a race due to wind/sea before they can lodge a protest and/or motion with JSK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6.7 Wind and Wave limits.

 

SNG writes in this lunatic low limit (still laughing at that one), but then they also write in clear English how the rules are applied:

 

1.2 Any conflict in the rules shall be resolved by (paraphrasing) applying the rules in order:

-DOG

-NOR

-SIs

-ISAF RSS

 

And the DOG clearly states that the challenger names the days of the races. We've flogged this horse so many times it has come back to life and died again, and again, and again.

 

But it looks that SNG does not see a conflict between the challenger's right to declare the dates and the defender's placing of a wind/sea limit in their NOR. How can they not see that conflict? Seriously, how can they? They are all well educated, but keep throwing up rules and decisions that in plain language conflict with the deed.

 

So, what is GGYC's relief on this one, assuming they do not agree to the limits? Do they have to go back to JSK? Or can they take this one before any racing to the jury? Or do they have to wait for SNG to cancel a race due to wind/sea before they can lodge a protest and/or motion with JSK?

BoFD. I can't believe that Ernie is making it so easy for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Notice of Race continues to require that the Challenger be measured to an exact value-90 feet LWL-and the Defender to a range of values, not to exceed 90 feet. There is language recognizing that the requirement is subject to any subsequent finding by the Court.

 

Help me out here... Has the Court already stipulated that the langauge in the Deed calls for measurement to a value that the boat is not to exeed? If so, what is at issue in the NOR requirement that the Challenger measure 90 feet is not whether the prescription of a value complies with a finding by the Court but with the Deed. If not, the stipulation of different measures, one for the Defender boat and the other for the Challenger, assumes a discretion on the part of the author of the NOR that is not spoken to in the Deed. Nowhere in the Deed is allowance granted the Defender to prescribe another outcome of the measurement , only that what is being measured shall not, through measurement, be shown to exceed the length specified in the Deed.

 

I have to think that the NOR repeats a strategy of asking the Court to order what has been stated in the Deed, hoping for another outcome, or exploiting access to the Court for some purpose other than clarification. How are we to expose abuse of the judicial process for what it is and, in so doing, compel the Defender to prepare rules that comply with language in the governing trust document?

 

Further, nowhere in the documents provided by SNG does the Defender acknowledge the thorny problem posed by the lapse of over half of the six month notice afforded the Defender to prepare to race at a location neither the Court nor the Defender could have known at the beginning of the ten-months allowed by the Deed from the time the Challenger is identified until the first race? The Defender is not obliged to accept half of what he is due and the langauge in the Deed and the laws governing administration of a Trust make clear that such a right cannot be compromised or foregone except through the Challenger's consent.

 

SNG continues to act unilaterally on matters that, through their failure to stipulate a compliant location in the time required, are no longer open to resolution in this way. SNG needs GGYC's agreement and they refuse to acknowledge that the setting for the decision to be made has changed.

 

I hate to say it but the disciminating langauage in the NOR governing measurement and SNG's continued belief that the discretion afforded them under the terms of the Deed is independent of the actions thay have taken as Trustee-nothing has changed-lead me to believe SNG expects further demands for Court time to be no more consequential than they have been. There is something hauntingly frivolous in SNG's conduct... Like they dance to a drummer all their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In for a penny...right?

 

Why shouldn't SNG keep playing their game? It's now Valencia because that's all they were left with; that gambit had run its course. There's plenty of game to play yet and still many more hidden parts of SNG's fuckery to find. Are you expecting them just to roll over? They've won this thing twice for cryin out loud! These guys aren't losers and they're just playing the game as it's played in Europe - honor is just another negotiable element of the deal.

 

Keep reading, there's many more eggs to find....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In for a penny...right?

 

Why shouldn't SNG keep playing their game? It's now Valencia because that's all they were left with; that gambit had run its course. There's plenty of game to play yet and still many more hidden parts of SNG's fuckery to find. Are you expecting them just to roll over? They've won this thing twice for cryin out loud! These guys aren't losers and they're just playing the game as it's played in Europe - honor is just another negotiable element of the deal.

 

Keep reading, there's many more eggs to find....

 

exactly, sets them up for ggyc to go back to court, (or remain there) and for them to call out ggyc as just wanting to win it in court, as per usual. same shit, different day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is obvious that SNG is taking the position that "not to exceed" only applies to them, which is of course incorrect, but yet again inviting litigation. This has been ruled on in court but the dumbfuckinstien lawyers have modified there view of it...or so it seems.

 

7.2 The Measurer shall determine the following:

(a) Whether the boat representing SNG, has a length on load waterline

of between 44 feet and 90 feet if it has one mast, and 80 feet and

115 feet if it has more than one mast;

(B) Whether the boat representing the GGYC conforms to the

description and has dimensions specified in its Notice of Challenge

dated 11 July 2007 and its Certificate of Documentation provided to

SNG by GGYC as its “customs house registry” namely;

(i) it is the “USA”;

(ii) has a rig of a single mast and is sloop rigged;

(iii) a length on load waterline of 90 feet;

7

(iv) a beam at load waterline of 90 feet;

(v) an extreme beam of 90 feet;

(vi) a draught of water (hull draught) of 3 feet; and

(vii) a draught of water (boards down) of 20 feet.

 

 

 

does the wing comply as being sloop rigged?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In for a penny...right?

 

Why shouldn't SNG keep playing their game? It's now Valencia because that's all they were left with; that gambit had run its course. There's plenty of game to play yet and still many more hidden parts of SNG's fuckery to find. Are you expecting them just to roll over? They've won this thing twice for cryin out loud! These guys aren't losers and they're just playing the game as it's played in Europe - honor is just another negotiable element of the deal.

 

Keep reading, there's many more eggs to find....

 

exactly, sets them up for ggyc to go back to court, (or remain there) and for them to call out ggyc as just wanting to win it in court, as per usual. same shit, different day.

Agreed. The NOR is like a six year old double dog daring his kid brother to hit him in the face with a stick. A word of caution to SNG is be careful what you wish for.

 

BoFD becomes more of a certainty with every passing day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transfering from a thread that didn't focus properly on the NOR:

 

 

It looks to me that they are digging their heels in on all of the rules tricks, and trying to appear reasonable and concessionary by agreeing to Valencia.

 

They are even persisting with the stuff that was explicitly ordered changed like the rudders.

 

I would think this would piss off the judge, and it would definitely piss me off if I were BMWO.

 

They want to win on the water, but they reserve several ways to keep the opponent off the water.

 

 

As we say in Mexico, these guys only learn from the newspaper. A rolled up newspaper.

 

 

Sadly, the rolled up newspaper is the court. Even sadder is that they are going to whine that it is LE that is demanding court action, and not a race on the water.... and their lemmings are going to buy that.

 

The question now is how does one litigate this with this little time to go? You would think that EB would be getting reasonable at this point given the downside legally, and competitively. But obviously not.

 

Does this give them more leverage with the 5 points discussion? Doubt it?

 

Why do you think they would be willing to show that they are scheming to a judge that clearly just caught on to their game? Arrogance and stupidity are one thing, but this seems downright self destructive.

 

Or do they have nothing to lose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, SimoN, tell us again how EB secretly wants a high-wind venue?

 

 

Well, 15 knot limit is still 5 knots too much for BOR .......

when their whole rig came tumbling down, remember???

 

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is obvious that SNG is taking the position that "not to exceed" only applies to them, which is of course incorrect, but yet again inviting litigation. This has been ruled on in court but the dumbfuckinstien lawyers have modified there view of it...or so it seems.

 

7.2 The Measurer shall determine the following:

(a) Whether the boat representing SNG, has a length on load waterline

of between 44 feet and 90 feet if it has one mast, and 80 feet and

115 feet if it has more than one mast;

(B) Whether the boat representing the GGYC conforms to the

description and has dimensions specified in its Notice of Challenge

dated 11 July 2007 and its Certificate of Documentation provided to

SNG by GGYC as its “customs house registry” namely;

(i) it is the “USA”;

(ii) has a rig of a single mast and is sloop rigged;

(iii) a length on load waterline of 90 feet;

7

(iv) a beam at load waterline of 90 feet;

(v) an extreme beam of 90 feet;

(vi) a draught of water (hull draught) of 3 feet; and

(vii) a draught of water (boards down) of 20 feet.

 

 

 

does the wing comply as being sloop rigged?

I wouldn't be at all surprised should SNG Alinghi contest this very point, but the precedent was set in 1989, so yes, the wing complies, especially if they have the ability to set a headsail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SNG is doing a favor to GGYC in NOR!

 

Stating wind limits is to keep Spithill alive and not send him to death as LE would do just for the sake of winning a sailing regatta.... If WHOREzilla brakes in 5knots and no waves, how could it survive over 15kn!!!

 

The DOG also states that the Defender rules are the ones that apply so ISAF rules (which are also the challenger rules) and as you can read in the ISAF RRS:

 

Rule 27.3 Before the starting signal, the race committee may for any reason postpone (display flag AP, AP over H, or AP over A, with two sounds) or abandon the race (display flag N over H, or N over A, with three sounds).

 

Rule 32.1 After the starting signal, the race committee may shorten the course (display flag S with two sounds) or abandon the race (display flag N, N over H, or N over A, with three sounds), as appropriate,

(a) because of an error in the starting procedure,

(B) because of foul weather,

© because of insufficient wind making it unlikely that any boat will finish within the time limit,

(d) because a mark is missing or out of position, or

(e) for any other reason directly affecting the safety or fairness of

the competition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is obvious that SNG is taking the position that "not to exceed" only applies to them, which is of course incorrect, but yet again inviting litigation. This has been ruled on in court but the dumbfuckinstien lawyers have modified there view of it...or so it seems.

 

7.2 The Measurer shall determine the following:

(a) Whether the boat representing SNG, has a length on load waterline

of between 44 feet and 90 feet if it has one mast, and 80 feet and

115 feet if it has more than one mast;

(B) Whether the boat representing the GGYC conforms to the

description and has dimensions specified in its Notice of Challenge

dated 11 July 2007 and its Certificate of Documentation provided to

SNG by GGYC as its “customs house registry” namely;

(i) it is the “USA”;

(ii) has a rig of a single mast and is sloop rigged;

(iii) a length on load waterline of 90 feet;

7

(iv) a beam at load waterline of 90 feet;

(v) an extreme beam of 90 feet;

(vi) a draught of water (hull draught) of 3 feet; and

(vii) a draught of water (boards down) of 20 feet.

 

 

 

does the wing comply as being sloop rigged?

I wouldn't be at all surprised should SNG Alinghi contest this very point, but the precedent was set in 1989, so yes, the wing complies, especially if they have the ability to set a headsail.

 

notice that its carefully called a 'rig' or a 'wingmast', clearly a sloop[ if its a mast and sets a headsail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those who sail all year round will know that sailing in 15 knots when its 5 °C is very different to sailing in 15 knots at 28° C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7.5 (d) “Equipment” in RRS 47.1 shall not include movable and variable water ballast

Does SNG really think this will fly with JSK's expert panel, not to mention GGYC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6.5

 

"If a race is a dead heat, no boat finishes, both boats are disqualified, or one boat fails to finish and the other is disqualified, the race shall be resailed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive my newbiness, but would the following:

 

"7.2 The Measurer shall determine the following:

(a) Whether the boat representing SNG, has a length on load waterline

of between 44 feet and 90 feet if it has one mast, and 80 feet and

115 feet if it has more than one mast;"

 

permit SNG to arrive in VLC with a completely new beast up to 115 ft in length with two masts? And, however unlikely, would that provide them with any advantage based on size?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1.5 RRS 41 will be amended to permit ... use of onboard laser, radar and other

detection equipment operated solely from onboard...

No surprise that measurement of the course wind field using lidar is permitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forgive my newbiness, but would the following: permit SNG to arrive in VLC with a completely new beast up to 115 ft in length with two masts? And, however unlikely, would that provide them with any advantage based on size?

 

That's arguably consistent with the Deed. There's no question that the Defender does not have to declare their boat until the day of the match (technically, measurement day).

 

The argument comes in where the question is raise about whether or not the Defender's configuration has to "match" the Challenger's. In other words, if the Challenger has one mast, is the Defender thereby constrained to also having only one mast? Opinions are all over the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone forwarded me what looks like a BOR Team email:

 

--

 

 

NYC 1430 Tue

 

Dear all,

 

The wing has been installed and is now vertical on the yacht. Watch it

live on the San Diego Fox 5 TV webcam here:

 

http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/morningne...tividlivestream

 

That's what RC and I are doing in the conference room of our lawfirm

in NYC, ugh.

 

But to the gang in SD -- fantastic!

 

Rgds,

 

Tom

 

--

 

 

Interesting. So RC and TE are sitting legal shiva here in NYC. That, combined with the terse GGYC statement just released that specifically did not mention the NOR, and we can guess that they are probably reading the NOR line by line in DB's conference room, coming up with a strategy. (Looks like the legal motions are probably not over...)

 

Maybe also reading the expert jury's report? Not sure if they would have received a copy of it, but I suspect they did.

 

And finally, just waiting for JSK to rule.

 

Well .... RC, TE - if you get bored and want to try ice skating in Bryant Park, I'll meet you there ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertising chosen by and supplied by the organizing authority; what do you think the chances are of a big SAP on the boom of BMWO. Or maybe www.Bobs_dildo_hut.com on the hull?

ADVERTISING

ISAF Regulation 20 shall apply. ISAF has given its written agreement to

boats displaying advertising in accordance with ISAF Regulation 20.6.4.

Competing boats may be required to display advertising chosen and

supplied by the organizing authority in accordance with and as permitted

by ISAF Regulation 20 as follows:

(a) On the first 20% of the forward part of each side of each hull;

(B) The foremost 20% of each side of the mainsail boom (subject to

ISAF Regulation 20.9(B)(i)); and

© an event sponsors flag to be carried throughout the event including

when the boat is in harbour or shore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the Match will be governed by the following:

.....

(e) the Prescriptions of Swiss Sailing as set out in Attachment 1 of this NOR with an English translation;"

 

Then

"to be inserted after rule 64.3b [which is measurement protests] additional text inserted by the .... Swiss Sailing Federation:

The authority possessing competence to establish facts shall be a measurement official recognized by the national authority. When the findings of the measurement official do not prove sufficient to allow the jury to settle the dispute, the claim must be submitted forthwith to the competent national authority"

 

 

So is this an attempt to ensure that any measurement dispute has to go (a) to a Swiss measurer and (B) if that's not enough, then Swiss Sailing Federation become the deciders on the matter?!

 

It's rubbish anyway, the match is not in Swiss waters, Swiss Sailing Federation have no jurisdiction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone notice that Ass-lingi still thinks they can check in with a 2 masted, 115 ft waterline vessel??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6.7 Wind and Wave limits.

 

SNG writes in this lunatic low limit (still laughing at that one), but then they also write in clear English how the rules are applied:

 

1.2 Any conflict in the rules shall be resolved by (paraphrasing) applying the rules in order:

-DOG

-NOR

-SIs

-ISAF RSS

 

And the DOG clearly states that the challenger names the days of the races. We've flogged this horse so many times it has come back to life and died again, and again, and again.

 

But it looks that SNG does not see a conflict between the challenger's right to declare the dates and the defender's placing of a wind/sea limit in their NOR. How can they not see that conflict? Seriously, how can they? They are all well educated, but keep throwing up rules and decisions that in plain language conflict with the deed.

 

So, what is GGYC's relief on this one, assuming they do not agree to the limits? Do they have to go back to JSK? Or can they take this one before any racing to the jury? Or do they have to wait for SNG to cancel a race due to wind/sea before they can lodge a protest and/or motion with JSK?

BoFD. I can't believe that Ernie is making it so easy for them.

 

What SNG is doing here is setting a LEGAL basis for an appeal of the Experts' Panel rulings. Essentially they are going to appeal the JSK rulings related to those opinions on the contention that they have issued a valid NOR that already sets out those rules based on their role as Deed Trustee.

 

Its a somewhat reasonable legal ploy. The problems they face are multifold though

  • These are not the standard 'rules and regulations of the SNG Yacht Club. Which means that they are NOT covered by the Mercury Bay ruling the way SNG claims they are
  • These are not rules and regulations compliant with any existing international sailing event - and the Experts' Panel will attest to that
  • These are not rules that are consistent with the "4 corners of the Deed".

This is SNG being desperate and trying to do what they can to avoid racing a Hard Sail (Aerodynamic Mast) BOR in a venue and at speeds that disadvantage their High Drag Low weight A5

 

I don't think it will work. But its their "hail mary pass".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
those who sail all year round will know that sailing in 15 knots when its 5 °C is very different to sailing in 15 knots at 28° C.

 

A good point.

 

Also need to take into account apparent wind. I don't know how fast these boats go to windward but the apparent wind speed would probably be close to 30 knots in 15 knots true wind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EB, Brad, and others of SNG and Alingi

 

This NOR is a disgrace to the sport of sailing!

 

What a bunch of loosers...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
those who sail all year round will know that sailing in 15 knots when its 5 °C is very different to sailing in 15 knots at 28° C.

 

A good point.

 

Also need to take into account apparent wind. I don't know how fast these boats go to windward but the apparent wind speed would probably be close to 30 knots in 15 knots true wind.

I did a 49er campaign where we trained most of the time in 5 deg air and 5 deg water. Valencia is warmer than that. sorry Not an issue. We used to use the salt water in the mornings to melt the frozen rainwater from the boat deck.

 

Wa wa wa....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6.7 Wind and Wave limits.

 

SNG writes in this lunatic low limit (still laughing at that one), but then they also write in clear English how the rules are applied:

 

1.2 Any conflict in the rules shall be resolved by (paraphrasing) applying the rules in order:

-DOG

-NOR

-SIs

-ISAF RSS

 

And the DOG clearly states that the challenger names the days of the races. We've flogged this horse so many times it has come back to life and died again, and again, and again.

 

But it looks that SNG does not see a conflict between the challenger's right to declare the dates and the defender's placing of a wind/sea limit in their NOR. How can they not see that conflict? Seriously, how can they? They are all well educated, but keep throwing up rules and decisions that in plain language conflict with the deed.

 

So, what is GGYC's relief on this one, assuming they do not agree to the limits? Do they have to go back to JSK? Or can they take this one before any racing to the jury? Or do they have to wait for SNG to cancel a race due to wind/sea before they can lodge a protest and/or motion with JSK?

BoFD. I can't believe that Ernie is making it so easy for them.

 

What SNG is doing here is setting a LEGAL basis for an appeal of the Experts' Panel rulings. Essentially they are going to appeal the JSK rulings related to those opinions on the contention that they have issued a valid NOR that already sets out those rules based on their role as Deed Trustee.

 

Its a somewhat reasonable legal ploy. The problems they face are multifold though

  • These are not the standard 'rules and regulations of the SNG Yacht Club. Which means that they are NOT covered by the Mercury Bay ruling the way SNG claims they are
  • These are not rules and regulations compliant with any existing international sailing event - and the Experts' Panel will attest to that
  • These are not rules that are consistent with the "4 corners of the Deed".

This is SNG being desperate and trying to do what they can to avoid racing a Hard Sail (Aerodynamic Mast) BOR in a venue and at speeds that disadvantage their High Drag Low weight A5

 

I don't think it will work. But its their "hail mary pass".

I'm sure I'm not alone in saying I appreciate your clarifying inputs to the legal gyrations that are taking place.

 

I only have two words to add; "having" and "anywhere".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"the Match will be governed by the following:

.....

(e) the Prescriptions of Swiss Sailing as set out in Attachment 1 of this NOR with an English translation;"

 

Then

"to be inserted after rule 64.3b [which is measurement protests] additional text inserted by the .... Swiss Sailing Federation:

The authority possessing competence to establish facts shall be a measurement official recognized by the national authority. When the findings of the measurement official do not prove sufficient to allow the jury to settle the dispute, the claim must be submitted forthwith to the competent national authority"

 

 

So is this an attempt to ensure that any measurement dispute has to go (a) to a Swiss measurer and (B) if that's not enough, then Swiss Sailing Federation become the deciders on the matter?!

 

It's rubbish anyway, the match is not in Swiss waters, Swiss Sailing Federation have no jurisdiction

For all the bullshit in this NOR that won't fly, this is the one bit I suspect will. The DOG is clear that it is the rules of the club that shall apply and as such, SNG's rules are governed by the Swiss Sailing Federation and apply to every one of their events. Under ISAF, there needs to be a National Authority and the standard proceedure is for it to be the one of the organising club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me what they have done overall is claim all the rights and privileges under ISAF, racing rules, etc but stripped away the rules themselves as they normally apply.

It's just the thinest possible veneer of official sanction over the top of 'Ernie's Way'! What's new?

 

SPANK THEM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems to me what they have done overall is claim all the rights and privileges under ISAF, racing rules, etc but stripped away the rules themselves as they normally apply.

It's just the thinest possible veneer of official sanction over the top of 'Ernie's Way'! What's new?

 

SPANK THEM

I'm fairly certain the court will

 

I'm watching the Dog out for her first walk since her new haircut

 

And she's doing 15--20 knots in 5-10kn of breeze,

 

And the foot is off the gas still.

 

 

EB just doesn't want to race this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EB just doesn't want to race this.

 

Well ... not with his beach cat on steroids he doesn't ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 29 page NOR for a match race is pretty ridiculous. Appendix Q is cool -- i think its the first fleet race rules to govern a "match" since the civil war? Did Ernie just allow himself to race a different boat in each race based on the conditions? I'm pretty sure a only 10 knot wind once well settled in with current flowing in the opposite direction will make a 1 meter swell somewhere on the course. So the limits on sea state will cause an abandonment well before we get to wind speed. This match could take a while, maybe a little undeserved payback to the kiwis on BOR for stretching the 2003 series in Auckland? I cant believe they played the media rights card with the BofFD laying on the table, but did cover the entry and registration fees so maybe that's progress. There are no leeward mark roundings planned for the 33rd match so we will see 10 to 15 guys jump overboard after the code 0 hoist and be picked up by chase craft--not to return until after the finish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6.7 Wind and Wave limits. First, these are ridiculously low (15kts, 1meter!!!). This was a long discussion in another thread, and I do not think it will survive a court challenge. Limits need to be mutually agreed to, and I just do not see LE agreeing to anything this early or this extreme. In the words of a former president "Not. Gonna. Happen."

 

You maybe turn your TV off during the final of the 31th AC, but the first race began february 15, and the fifth on march 2 because TNZ made numerous race report because of the wind, as he was fully entitled due to his defender position, despite the fact that Alinghi disagree and officially protest.

 

Quote from the DOG :

"These ocean courses shall be practicable [...], and shall be selected by the Club holding the Cup; and these races shall be sailed subject to its rules and sailing regulations[...]"

 

Where do you interpret "limits need to be mutually agreed" ?

 

 

The argument comes in where the question is raise about whether or not the Defender's configuration has to "match" the Challenger's. In other words, if the Challenger has one mast, is the Defender thereby constrained to also having only one mast? Opinions are all over the map.

 

You mean, for example, the 1988 DOG match in San Diego ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The argument comes in where the question is raise about whether or not the Defender's configuration has to "match" the Challenger's. In other words, if the Challenger has one mast, is the Defender thereby constrained to also having only one mast? Opinions are all over the map.

You mean, for example, the 1988 DOG match in San Diego ?

 

Yup. The Court eventually ruled that the boats did not need to "match" in order to "have a match".

There remains, though, some disagreement about whether or not the Defender can bring out a 115-foot LWL two-masted boat to face a 90-foot LWL single-masted boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There remains, though, some disagreement about whether or not the Defender can bring out a 115-foot LWL two-masted boat to face a 90-foot LWL single-masted boat.

 

Frankly I agree with you. It would not be fair. I mean, if Alinghi came with such a monster and win the cup... the victory will have a bad taste. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think any boat Allinghi wants is okay. That really should be the point of this dog match. BOR as well.

15 knot wind max is silly though.

should be at least 20. :D

Or MC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote from the DOG :

"These ocean courses shall be practicable [...], and shall be selected by the Club holding the Cup; and these races shall be sailed subject to its rules and sailing regulations[...]"

 

Where do you interpret "limits need to be mutually agreed" ?

 

Quote the whole thing:

 

In case the parties cannot mutually agree upon the terms of a match, then three races shall be sailed, and the winner of two of such races shall be entitled to the Cup. All such races shall be on ocean courses, free from headlands, as follows: the first race, twenty nautical miles to windward and return; the second race, an equilateral triangular race of thirty-nine nautical miles, the first side of which shall be a beat to windward; the third race, (if necessary), twenty nautical miles to windward and return; and one week day shall intervene between the conclusion of one race and the starting of the next race. These ocean courses shall be practicable in all parts for vessels of twenty-two feet draught of water and shall be selected by the Club holding the Cup; and these races shall be sailed subject to its rules and sailing regulations so far as the same do not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift, but without any time allowances whatever. The challenged Club shall not be required to name its representative vessel until at the time agreed upon for the start, but the vessel when named must compete in all the races; and each of such races must be completed within seven hours.

 

Where does SNG get the idea that their club rules can add a restriction that the Deed does not have? The races will start on February 8th ... no matter what the wind and waves are ... unless both skippers decide that conditions are too extreme. (Mutual Consent)

 

If the RC state the race is canceled or abandon for "foul" weather ... in 15.00001 knots of breeze or 1.00001m waves somewhere in the 200 square miles of racing area ... they will get laughed off the planet ...

 

GGYC should bring a half dozen Junior Sailors and there Opti's to sail around the RC boat to give SNG some idea of sailing conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These ocean courses shall be practicable in all parts for vessels of twenty-two feet draught of water and shall be selected by the Club holding the Cup; and these races shall be sailed subject to its rules and sailing regulations so far as the same do not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift, but without any time allowances whatever.

 

Where does SNG get the idea that their club rules can add a restriction that the Deed does not have?

 

You quote it well, but you say it yourself. The Deed does not have any wind provisions, so from my point of view SNG could made such rules who will obviously not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
......... GGYC should bring a half dozen Junior Sailors and there Opti's to sail around the RC boat to give SNG some idea of sailing conditions.
Or .....

 

this lass could go out for Alinghi against BO when the going gets tough, Ernie should contract her and her fleet

 

capizzano__MG_4899.JPGcapizzano__MG_5517.JPG

 

Send Ernie some white zinc to 'warrior' up his crew and HTFU !!

 

http://www.capizzano.com/optinam2009/PracticeDay.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1.5© - A person leaving the boat accidentally MAY be returned to the boat, which seems to indicate that they do not NEED to be returned and, more importantly, that the yacht does not need to recover that person itself. Recall the rip in the tramp in SD ... if such a thing were to happen, the support boat could pick up the crew member and the race boat could continue. Personally, I think this is a good rule, but it sure is different from any regatta I've ever been in.

 

I agree this is a good rule. However, I interpret it as supplementary to RRS 41 (outside help) and 47.2 (leaving the vessel). I believe it is allowing outside help to get the crew member back on board, but the boat must still have all crew back on board to finish.

 

This is not too dissimilar to the NoR for AC32. This allowed the yacht to recover a man overboard, or to allow them to be recovered by another vessel. However, if they are recovered by another vessel then the yacht will receive a penalty.

 

I believe that the J class yachts also have similar rules to this.

 

 

1.8© - Keep dreaming, Ernesto. LE will never agree to any of your documents which, as a precondition, make him drop his ability to bring suit against you. This has been tried so many times, with the original protocol and the recent Australia idea being just two examples. Why, if LE has never agreed to this before, do you think he will now?

 

This is RRS 3 in the 2009-12 version - the NoR merely reminds everybody that it is there. There can be no argument over this. Both teams will have agreed to this rule in the past by sailing in regattas under this set of rules.

 

 

6.7 Wind and Wave limits. First, these are ridiculously low (15kts, 1meter!!!). This was a long discussion in another thread, and I do not think it will survive a court challenge. Limits need to be mutually agreed to, and I just do not see LE agreeing to anything this early or this extreme. In the words of a former president "Not. Gonna. Happen."

 

I thought this was going to happen. Both AC31 & AC32 imposed wind limits in the NoR / SI setting a precedent. There is nothing in the DoG which specifically prevents this. I think they may have trouble stopping this one.

 

It has been mentioned in other posts that the DoG allows the Challenging Club to set the race dates. However the wording of the DoG is "The Challenging Club shall give ten months' notice, in writing, naming the days for the proposed races;". I believe the crucial word is "Proposed" - without that word the race dates are fixed, with that word it is merely a proposal.

 

I am sure this is something we will see argued in court!

 

 

13. Berthing - Is this a sneaky way for EB to make it hard on BMWO to berth in such a way as is necessary for the wing??

 

Or just a way of making sure the boats are lined up nicely. The Swiss are a nation of obsessive compulsives. They cannot bear to see things out of place. Imagine the chaos is the BOR boys came in after a hard day on the water and just rafted up the boat to the nearest 40 footer while they went for a root beer or two...

 

 

14. Communications - This one is fascinating. I am completely in favor of it as a rule, and totally understand why EB might think that a team financed by a software mogul might have an advantage in the field of communications. BUT, I do not see it surviving challenge. If the AC is truly an open design competition, if engines cannot be restricted, I don't see how you can restrict the use of high tech communications equipment that might, for example, be able to read a wind field over a 400 square mile area in real time.

 

Agree good rule - and pretty standard in most NoR or SI. However it is just reinforcing the fact that the use of high tech comms equipment is banned by RRS 41: "A boat shall not receive help from any outside source". This RRS is deleted in races that allow external weather routing.

 

 

And the DOG clearly states that the challenger names the days of the races. We've flogged this horse so many times it has come back to life and died again, and again, and again.

 

But it looks that SNG does not see a conflict between the challenger's right to declare the dates and the defender's placing of a wind/sea limit in their NOR. How can they not see that conflict? Seriously, how can they? They are all well educated, but keep throwing up rules and decisions that in plain language conflict with the deed.

 

So, what is GGYC's relief on this one, assuming they do not agree to the limits? Do they have to go back to JSK? Or can they take this one before any racing to the jury? Or do they have to wait for SNG to cancel a race due to wind/sea before they can lodge a protest and/or motion with JSK?

 

As mentioned above, I think the key thing is the word "proposed" in the DoG in relation to dates. This word could provide the NoR with the escape clause they require here!

 

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised should SNG Alinghi contest this very point, but the precedent was set in 1989, so yes, the wing complies, especially if they have the ability to set a headsail.

 

My understanding on the measurement section is that the NoR merely lists the items on the CHR certificate for Dogzilla - it is nothing to do with what is allowed within the DoG (which does not mention rig types). If the CHR stated sloop rigged, and USA is not deemed to be sloop rigged, then the precedent set in 1989 is irrelevant. The question is "is the wing a sloop rig?".

 

The OED defines a sloop as:

a single-masted sailing boat with a mainsail and jib rigged fore and aft.

 

Is the wing considered to be a mainsail, or is it just a large mast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These ocean courses shall be practicable in all parts for vessels of twenty-two feet draught of water and shall be selected by the Club holding the Cup; and these races shall be sailed subject to its rules and sailing regulations so far as the same do not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift, but without any time allowances whatever.

 

Where does SNG get the idea that their club rules can add a restriction that the Deed does not have?

 

You quote it well, but you say it yourself. The Deed does not have any wind provisions, so from my point of view SNG could made such rules who will obviously not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift

 

In this case it will be the difference between things not specifically prohibited are allowed and things not specifically allowed are prohibited.

 

IMO the paragraph sets limits on racing ... must be completed in seven hours. That sets the lower effective limit for wind. Their are no upper limits unless agreed to by GGYC. The default terms of the match do not contain wind limits only the time limit. IMO this alters the default terms of the match so would require mutual consent.

 

The court has ordered that the first race shall be February 8th. If SNG to not set a course and start a race, they will be in contempt. The race February 8th will be race one, if SNG chose not to sail ... they lose ... unless GGYC cannot finish in under seven hours.

 

The biggest problem with the wind speed limit and the wave height limit is the course size. To enforce the limits the wind and waves over 200 square miles of open ocean must be monitored. If they are not and TWS over 15 exists or waves over 1m exist, the RC must grant redress for not abiding by their own NOR.

 

Never ever write a rule you cannot enforce ... it will bite you.

 

I'll bet the court is forced to rule on this either before the first race or after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i see many illegal issues on the nor

 

the ISAF media rights claims are bogus-and ISAF cant license them to anyone-

 

and organizing authority snf /acm / crooks unlimited dont own them either-

MAHGUAH - THIS IS STINGETTE

 

I MISS YOUR CAP LOCKS

 

AND I NEED MORE BEER

 

AND SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE SCALPED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i see many illegal issues on the nor

 

the ISAF media rights claims are bogus-and ISAF cant license them to anyone-

 

and organizing authority snf /acm / crooks unlimited dont own them either-

MAHGUAH - THIS IS STINGETTE

 

I MISS YOUR CAP LOCKS

 

AND I NEED MORE BEER

 

AND SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE SCALPED

Sorry, she insisted! Back to the subject. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These ocean courses shall be practicable in all parts for vessels of twenty-two feet draught of water and shall be selected by the Club holding the Cup; and these races shall be sailed subject to its rules and sailing regulations so far as the same do not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift, but without any time allowances whatever.

 

Where does SNG get the idea that their club rules can add a restriction that the Deed does not have?

 

You quote it well, but you say it yourself. The Deed does not have any wind provisions, so from my point of view SNG could made such rules who will obviously not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift

 

 

This horse has been beaten pretty badly but here goes:

 

The Deed says the challenger specifies the dates of the match. Should the defender write in rules that limit the conditions of the racing, the defender is potentially affecting the challenger's right to specify the date of the match should the first race be canceled based on said rule. If you allow this situation, it could become absurd easily and the defender run amuck with ways to delay the challenger's date...(which is why it's absolutely crazy to allow the defender to keep writing rules at will).

 

ergo, The defender, per the deed, cannot specify the race dates nor delay the racing on their own...therefore the only way you can NOT race on the first day is through a mutually agreed conditions that limit the racing with the challenger. Otherwise, with no agreement, they race as scheduled with no limits...per the Deed.

 

Y'all try to make this so hard....it's simple really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this bit was interesting....

 

SNG shall present for measurement at least one yacht it may select prior to the first race

 

Does that mean they can measure in more than one boat??

 

Otherwise as has been mentioned WTF do they think they are doing ignoring direct court rulings by including the old "rudder included in LWL" and " LWL must = 90' " bullshit.

 

Are they deliberately trying to piss Shirley off ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought this bit was interesting....

 

SNG shall present for measurement at least one yacht it may select prior to the first race

 

Does that mean they can measure in more than one boat??

 

Otherwise as has been mentioned WTF do they think they are doing ignoring direct court rulings by including the old "rudder included in LWL" and " LWL must = 90' " bullshit.

 

Are they deliberately trying to piss Shirley off ???

 

No,they are not trying to piss JSK off. Yes, they can measure as many boats as they want to. The DoG says (as ammended 1887) the defender shall name its vessel before the start of the first race. I am more worried that they will be happy to put all the ballast on board... as Cheezy is 115ft and then stick a second stick or wing(s) .... I don't have any idea how it would work with the tensegrity structure of cheezy now... I can see them pissing off JSK by trying to twist the Deed further by meeting the challenge of a 90ft lwl hard sail sloop of BOR with a ballasted down 115ft LWL two stick Cheezilla.

 

13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought this bit was interesting....

 

SNG shall present for measurement at least one yacht it may select prior to the first race

 

Does that mean they can measure in more than one boat??

 

Otherwise as has been mentioned WTF do they think they are doing ignoring direct court rulings by including the old "rudder included in LWL" and " LWL must = 90' " bullshit.

 

Are they deliberately trying to piss Shirley off ???

 

No,they are not trying to piss JSK off. Yes, they can measure as many boats as they want to. The DoG says (as ammended 1887) the defender shall name its vessel before the start of the first race. I am more worried that they will be happy to put all the ballast on board... as Cheezy is 115ft and then stick a second stick or wing(s) .... I don't have any idea how it would work with the tensegrity structure of cheezy now... I can see them pissing off JSK by trying to twist the Deed further by meeting the challenge of a 90ft lwl hard sail sloop of BOR with a ballasted down 115ft LWL two stick Cheezilla.

 

13

 

 

Two sticks or not, I think they will be making a losing bet if they have to carry the ballast at all times. Yes, there are conditions where it would be killer, but it could make them very slow in others, and could break the boat. If not, I think they wouldn't be fighting this so hard.

 

Two sticks on their platform is a loser at this late point of development.

 

As for measuring multiple yachts, I'm sure they will measure in LeBlack, and Sui 100, and even Foncia.... and will decide based on the weather forecast on the 8th of february. That's an advantage they are entitled to. May not seem fair, but those are the rules. Further evidence of their chickenshit on the wind/wave limits. They could have yachts for all the possible conditions... though they would have to pray the weather lasted 5 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the RC state the race is canceled or abandon for "foul" weather ... in 15.00001 knots of breeze or 1.00001m waves somewhere in the 200 square miles of racing area ... they will get laughed off the planet ...

 

Laughable or not, I'm not too sure either team wants to race in more breeze than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A 29 page NOR for a match race is pretty ridiculous.

 

My club is so behind the times. Our NoRs are only two pages long and don't include any letters from lawyers at all. I will start drafting the other 27 pages right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i see many illegal issues on the nor

 

the ISAF media rights claims are bogus-and ISAF cant license them to anyone-

 

and organizing authority snf /acm / crooks unlimited dont own them either-

MAHGUAH - THIS IS STINGETTE

 

I MISS YOUR CAP LOCKS

 

AND I NEED MORE BEER

 

AND SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE SCALPED

 

 

SISTAH--STINGETTE -- TELL BIG DADDY TO GET SOME MORE BEER --COME BRO YOUR GIRL IS THIRSTY- LOL

 

DONT WORRY--THE SCALPIN WAR PARTY IS HAPPENING -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i see many illegal issues on the nor

 

the ISAF media rights claims are bogus-and ISAF cant license them to anyone-

 

and organizing authority snf /acm / crooks unlimited dont own them either-

MAHGUAH - THIS IS STINGETTE

 

I MISS YOUR CAP LOCKS

 

AND I NEED MORE BEER

 

AND SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE SCALPED

 

 

SISTAH--STINGETTE -- TELL BIG DADDY TO GET SOME MORE BEER --COME BRO YOUR GIRL IS THIRSTY- LOL

 

DONT WORRY--THE SCALPIN WAR PARTY IS HAPPENING -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey weedy Tomawak Justice, the only thing your'e scalping is your foreskin due to heavy Boronanism !!! :lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i see many illegal issues on the nor

 

the ISAF media rights claims are bogus-and ISAF cant license them to anyone-

 

and organizing authority snf /acm / crooks unlimited dont own them either-

MAHGUAH - THIS IS STINGETTE

 

I MISS YOUR CAP LOCKS

 

AND I NEED MORE BEER

 

AND SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE SCALPED

 

 

SISTAH--STINGETTE -- TELL BIG DADDY TO GET SOME MORE BEER --COME BRO YOUR GIRL IS THIRSTY- LOL

 

DONT WORRY--THE SCALPIN WAR PARTY IS HAPPENING -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey weedy Tomawak Justice, the only thing your'e scalping is your foreskin due to heavy Boronanism !!!

 

 

:o your drinking the firewater has you dreaming or screaming in fear--and your BORING-ISM

 

you better tell your puppet boy bertarelli --get ready for scalpin-- :lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i see many illegal issues on the nor

 

the ISAF media rights claims are bogus-and ISAF cant license them to anyone-

 

and organizing authority snf /acm / crooks unlimited dont own them either-

MAHGUAH - THIS IS STINGETTE

 

I MISS YOUR CAP LOCKS

 

AND I NEED MORE BEER

 

AND SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE SCALPED

 

 

SISTAH--STINGETTE -- TELL BIG DADDY TO GET SOME MORE BEER --COME BRO YOUR GIRL IS THIRSTY- LOL

 

DONT WORRY--THE SCALPIN WAR PARTY IS HAPPENING -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey weedy Tomawak Justice, the only thing your'e scalping is your foreskin due to heavy Boronanism !!!

 

 

:o your drinking the firewater has you dreaming or screaming in fear--and your BORING-ISM

 

you better tell your puppet boy bertarelli --get ready for scalpin-- :lol::lol:

 

yes sure getting ready to scalp Bor ambitions on the water (salted) not like your (fire) !!! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These ocean courses shall be practicable in all parts for vessels of twenty-two feet draught of water and shall be selected by the Club holding the Cup; and these races shall be sailed subject to its rules and sailing regulations so far as the same do not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift, but without any time allowances whatever.

 

Where does SNG get the idea that their club rules can add a restriction that the Deed does not have?

 

You quote it well, but you say it yourself. The Deed does not have any wind provisions, so from my point of view SNG could made such rules who will obviously not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift

 

 

This horse has been beaten pretty badly but here goes:

 

The Deed says the challenger specifies the dates of the match. Should the defender write in rules that limit the conditions of the racing, the defender is potentially affecting the challenger's right to specify the date of the match should the first race be canceled based on said rule. If you allow this situation, it could become absurd easily and the defender run amuck with ways to delay the challenger's date...(which is why it's absolutely crazy to allow the defender to keep writing rules at will).

 

 

ergo, The defender, per the deed, cannot specify the race dates nor delay the racing on their own...therefore the only way you can NOT race on the first day is through a mutually agreed conditions that limit the racing with the challenger. Otherwise, with no agreement, they race as scheduled with no limits...per the Deed.

 

Y'all try to make this so hard....it's simple really.

 

Brilliant

 

All I can see with this joke of a NOR , late as it is = "DOOM & UNMITIGATED FAILURE" :P

 

For all their posturing of wanting to win it on the water they certainly leave the door wide open for court proceeding to continue , perhaps they are trying to improve their strike rate in court , however with this debarcle I think a Bitch slapping is on it's way .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i see many illegal issues on the nor

 

the ISAF media rights claims are bogus-and ISAF cant license them to anyone-

 

and organizing authority snf /acm / crooks unlimited dont own them either-

MAHGUAH - THIS IS STINGETTE

 

I MISS YOUR CAP LOCKS

 

AND I NEED MORE BEER

 

AND SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE SCALPED

 

 

SISTAH--STINGETTE -- TELL BIG DADDY TO GET SOME MORE BEER --COME BRO YOUR GIRL IS THIRSTY- LOL

 

DONT WORRY--THE SCALPIN WAR PARTY IS HAPPENING -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey weedy Tomawak Justice, the only thing your'e scalping is your foreskin due to heavy Boronanism !!!

 

 

:o your drinking the firewater has you dreaming or screaming in fear--and your BORING-ISM

 

you better tell your puppet boy bertarelli --get ready for scalpin-- :lol::lol:

 

yes sure getting ready to scalp Bor ambitions on the water (salted) not like your (fire) !!!

 

 

whatever that means? at least we got salt water--and some ocean- :lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i see many illegal issues on the nor

 

the ISAF media rights claims are bogus-and ISAF cant license them to anyone-

 

and organizing authority snf /acm / crooks unlimited dont own them either-

MAHGUAH - THIS IS STINGETTE

 

I MISS YOUR CAP LOCKS

 

AND I NEED MORE BEER

 

AND SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE SCALPED

 

 

SISTAH--STINGETTE -- TELL BIG DADDY TO GET SOME MORE BEER --COME BRO YOUR GIRL IS THIRSTY- LOL

 

DONT WORRY--THE SCALPIN WAR PARTY IS HAPPENING -

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey weedy Tomawak Justice, the only thing your'e scalping is your foreskin due to heavy Boronanism !!!

 

 

:o your drinking the firewater has you dreaming or screaming in fear--and your BORING-ISM

 

you better tell your puppet boy bertarelli --get ready for scalpin-- :lol::lol:

 

yes sure getting ready to scalp Bor ambitions on the water (salted) not like your (fire) !!! :P

 

 

CU CLOCKS CLAN GLAD YOU STILL HAVE YOUR DAY JOB

post-40325-1257925914_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go race. Nothing in that (other than the MOB issue) is out of line with the expectations everyone on the world wants to see.

 

Go race. date set, location set, rules set, boats set, screw the mutual consent agreements and deed legal issues. Decide on the water, suspend all suits until after the race.

 

If Ellison has any balls, that is exactly what he should do. Yes he can protest, but his act of protesting just defeats the purpose. The DOG challenge is not suppose to be a fair fight.

 

One thing this whole things does- 90X90 class. Is there anything else anyone wants to see in the americas cup. 20nm legs in 90X90 class boats, the race will be over in a hour. Made for TV excitement. They are going to need 2 laps.

 

GO RACE- we have been waiting and waiting, this is less than 3 months away

 

GO RACE- DO IT PLEASE.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought this bit was interesting....

 

SNG shall present for measurement at least one yacht it may select prior to the first race

 

Does that mean they can measure in more than one boat??

 

Otherwise as has been mentioned WTF do they think they are doing ignoring direct court rulings by including the old "rudder included in LWL" and " LWL must = 90' " bullshit.

 

Are they deliberately trying to piss Shirley off ???

 

No,they are not trying to piss JSK off. Yes, they can measure as many boats as they want to. The DoG says (as ammended 1887) the defender shall name its vessel before the start of the first race. I am more worried that they will be happy to put all the ballast on board... as Cheezy is 115ft and then stick a second stick or wing(s) .... I don't have any idea how it would work with the tensegrity structure of cheezy now... I can see them pissing off JSK by trying to twist the Deed further by meeting the challenge of a 90ft lwl hard sail sloop of BOR with a ballasted down 115ft LWL two stick Cheezilla.

 

13

 

Well if they are not trying to piss Shirley off why include rudders in the LWL measurement when she has already ruled NO.

 

And why insist on LWL must = 90' when she has already ruled must not exceed 90' ?????

 

And they know by now that the rules troika are going to back that up!!!! They are just being arrogant shits AGAIN!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These ocean courses shall be practicable in all parts for vessels of twenty-two feet draught of water and shall be selected by the Club holding the Cup; and these races shall be sailed subject to its rules and sailing regulations so far as the same do not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift, but without any time allowances whatever.

 

Where does SNG get the idea that their club rules can add a restriction that the Deed does not have?

 

You quote it well, but you say it yourself. The Deed does not have any wind provisions, so from my point of view SNG could made such rules who will obviously not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift

 

The Deed says the challenger specifies the dates of the match. Should the defender write in rules that limit the conditions of the racing, the defender is potentially affecting the challenger's right to specify the date of the match should the first race be canceled based on said rule. If you allow this situation, it could become absurd easily and the defender run amuck with ways to delay the challenger's date...(which is why it's absolutely crazy to allow the defender to keep writing rules at will).

 

Good explanation.

But "absolutely crazy" or not, this is what is written in the Deed. So you cannot say one day : "This is so BECAUSE it's written in the Deed" and the next day "This should not apply BECAUSE it's absolutely crazy"

 

So easy to pick the interpretation that match your own interest.

 

 

Y'all try to make this so hard....it's simple really.

 

No it's not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic move of Alinghi, setting a wind limit of 15 knots. They clevery designed a light air cat knowing they can set the limits in the NOR.

So Larry, even if you add 3 more wing mast on that dump truck USA you will be kicked ass by Alinghi. All that money and time wasted, well you get what you deserve they say.

Rumour is that Alinghi even will not bother to install a wing mast as they know all the data of the dump truck USA uptill 15knots of wind and are much faster.

Let the games begin! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These ocean courses shall be practicable in all parts for vessels of twenty-two feet draught of water and shall be selected by the Club holding the Cup; and these races shall be sailed subject to its rules and sailing regulations so far as the same do not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift, but without any time allowances whatever.

 

Where does SNG get the idea that their club rules can add a restriction that the Deed does not have?

 

You quote it well, but you say it yourself. The Deed does not have any wind provisions, so from my point of view SNG could made such rules who will obviously not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift

 

 

This horse has been beaten pretty badly but here goes:

 

The Deed says the challenger specifies the dates of the match. Should the defender write in rules that limit the conditions of the racing, the defender is potentially affecting the challenger's right to specify the date of the match should the first race be canceled based on said rule. If you allow this situation, it could become absurd easily and the defender run amuck with ways to delay the challenger's date...(which is why it's absolutely crazy to allow the defender to keep writing rules at will).

 

ergo, The defender, per the deed, cannot specify the race dates nor delay the racing on their own...therefore the only way you can NOT race on the first day is through a mutually agreed conditions that limit the racing with the challenger. Otherwise, with no agreement, they race as scheduled with no limits...per the Deed.

 

Y'all try to make this so hard....it's simple really.

 

Indeed there are only two ways a race cannot occur on the specified days.

1: Mutual consent

2: 7 hour time limit

 

1 metre waves limits for 90 foot boats? toughen the fuck up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're missing a couple of points:

 

One of JSK's questions to the wise men is, when can the rules be changed after the nor. surprise, before she rules, an NOR for valencia, with all the bs, and after they know the wise men's report. coincidence ? riight. its a set up for further appeals. "we have an nor, it wouldn't be right or legal to change." This is pure BO jedi mind trick. it even includes provisions for court orders. so if the evil american jewish court forces the innocent swiss to change they can, but only if.

 

All le suisse have to do to allow a 115 ft lwl yacht to measure in is add a mast. stick a board sail on the back of an ama and voila, a yawl. wil it slow them down, perhaps, but perhaps not as much as if they had no movable ballast aboard.

 

blame and delay, why not ? Who knows the horse may learn to sing, yodel, or eat a lot of cheese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These ocean courses shall be practicable in all parts for vessels of twenty-two feet draught of water and shall be selected by the Club holding the Cup; and these races shall be sailed subject to its rules and sailing regulations so far as the same do not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift, but without any time allowances whatever.

 

Where does SNG get the idea that their club rules can add a restriction that the Deed does not have?

 

You quote it well, but you say it yourself. The Deed does not have any wind provisions, so from my point of view SNG could made such rules who will obviously not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift

 

 

This horse has been beaten pretty badly but here goes:

 

The Deed says the challenger specifies the dates of the match. Should the defender write in rules that limit the conditions of the racing, the defender is potentially affecting the challenger's right to specify the date of the match should the first race be canceled based on said rule. If you allow this situation, it could become absurd easily and the defender run amuck with ways to delay the challenger's date...(which is why it's absolutely crazy to allow the defender to keep writing rules at will).

 

ergo, The defender, per the deed, cannot specify the race dates nor delay the racing on their own...therefore the only way you can NOT race on the first day is through a mutually agreed conditions that limit the racing with the challenger. Otherwise, with no agreement, they race as scheduled with no limits...per the Deed.

 

Y'all try to make this so hard....it's simple really.

 

Indeed there are only two ways a race cannot occur on the specified days.

1: Mutual consent

2: 7 hour time limit

 

1 metre waves limits for 90 foot boats? toughen the fuck up!

 

Exactely, by mutual consent, but this says nothing about the NOR.

In theory when the wind is 10 knots they can decide on mutual consent not to race or when larry has problems with his piles/haemorrhoids Ernie can be so kind not to race by mutual consent.

But if the wind is over 15 knots NOR is clear. That has nothing to do with the deed. On all America's cups NOR where changed in favour of the defender,. I think the Americans invented that.

 

These ocean courses shall be practicable in all parts for vessels of twenty-two feet draught of water and shall be selected by the Club holding the Cup; and these races shall be sailed subject to its rules and sailing regulations so far as the same do not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift, but without any time allowances whatever.

 

Where does SNG get the idea that their club rules can add a restriction that the Deed does not have?

 

You quote it well, but you say it yourself. The Deed does not have any wind provisions, so from my point of view SNG could made such rules who will obviously not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift

 

 

This horse has been beaten pretty badly but here goes:

 

The Deed says the challenger specifies the dates of the match. Should the defender write in rules that limit the conditions of the racing, the defender is potentially affecting the challenger's right to specify the date of the match should the first race be canceled based on said rule. If you allow this situation, it could become absurd easily and the defender run amuck with ways to delay the challenger's date...(which is why it's absolutely crazy to allow the defender to keep writing rules at will).

 

ergo, The defender, per the deed, cannot specify the race dates nor delay the racing on their own...therefore the only way you can NOT race on the first day is through a mutually agreed conditions that limit the racing with the challenger. Otherwise, with no agreement, they race as scheduled with no limits...per the Deed.

 

Y'all try to make this so hard....it's simple really.

 

Indeed there are only two ways a race cannot occur on the specified days.

1: Mutual consent

2: 7 hour time limit

 

1 metre waves limits for 90 foot boats? toughen the fuck up!

 

Exactely, by mutual consent, but this says nothing about the NOR.

In theory when the wind is 10 knots they can decide on mutual consent not to race or when larry has problems with his piles/haemorrhoids Ernie can be so kind not to race by mutual consent.

But if the wind is over 15 knots NOR is clear. That has nothing to do with the deed. On all America's cups NOR where changed in favour of the defender,. I think the Americans invented that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beaufort

number Description term Wind speeds Wave height (m)

Wind Wave knots m/s probable maximum

0 Calm - < 1 0 - 0.2 - -

1 Light air Ripples 1 - 3 0.3 - 1.5 0.1 0.1

2 Light breeze Small wavelets 4 - 6 1.6 - 3.3 0.2 0.3

3 Gentle breeze Large wavelets 7 - 10 3.4 - 5.4 0.6 1.0

4 Moderate breeze Small waves 11 - 16 5.5 - 7.9 1.0 1.5

 

On the Beautfort scale, 15 knots of wind will produce 1m waves, and max height of 1.5m

 

Racing cancelled

 

Will they be measuring average windspeed or maximum gust.

If the maximum gust speed, the the average would be nearer 8 to 10 knots.

 

from http://www.bom.gov.au/info/marine/marpamp.shtml

Forecasts of sea and swell in coastal waters forecasts are given in metres and describe the height, which is the average height of the highest one-third of the waves (see definitions and terminology).

 

Some waves will be higher and some lower than the forecast and observed height.

 

The Bureau of Meteorology does not forecast maximum wave heights in routine forecasts.

Statistically it is estimated that about one in every 2000 to 3000 waves (three to four times a day) will be approximately twice the height of the significant wave.

 

 

How will they measure the wave height, swell plus chop, just the chop on top of just the swell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beaufort

number Description term Wind speeds Wave height (m)

Wind Wave knots m/s probable maximum

0 Calm - < 1 0 - 0.2 - -

1 Light air Ripples 1 - 3 0.3 - 1.5 0.1 0.1

2 Light breeze Small wavelets 4 - 6 1.6 - 3.3 0.2 0.3

3 Gentle breeze Large wavelets 7 - 10 3.4 - 5.4 0.6 1.0

4 Moderate breeze Small waves 11 - 16 5.5 - 7.9 1.0 1.5

 

On the Beautfort scale, 15 knots of wind will produce 1m waves, and max height of 1.5m

 

Racing cancelled

 

Will they be measuring average windspeed or maximum gust.

If the maximum gust speed, the the average would be nearer 8 to 10 knots.

 

from http://www.bom.gov.au/info/marine/marpamp.shtml

Forecasts of sea and swell in coastal waters forecasts are given in metres and describe the height, which is the average height of the highest one-third of the waves (see definitions and terminology).

 

Some waves will be higher and some lower than the forecast and observed height.

 

The Bureau of Meteorology does not forecast maximum wave heights in routine forecasts.

Statistically it is estimated that about one in every 2000 to 3000 waves (three to four times a day) will be approximately twice the height of the significant wave.

 

 

How will they measure the wave height, swell plus chop, just the chop on top of just the swell.

 

Was also my main concern.... How do you measure it? Who? WHen? Where? With which tolerance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These ocean courses shall be practicable in all parts for vessels of twenty-two feet draught of water and shall be selected by the Club holding the Cup; and these races shall be sailed subject to its rules and sailing regulations so far as the same do not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift, but without any time allowances whatever.

 

Where does SNG get the idea that their club rules can add a restriction that the Deed does not have?

 

You quote it well, but you say it yourself. The Deed does not have any wind provisions, so from my point of view SNG could made such rules who will obviously not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift

 

 

This horse has been beaten pretty badly but here goes:

 

The Deed says the challenger specifies the dates of the match. Should the defender write in rules that limit the conditions of the racing, the defender is potentially affecting the challenger's right to specify the date of the match should the first race be canceled based on said rule. If you allow this situation, it could become absurd easily and the defender run amuck with ways to delay the challenger's date...(which is why it's absolutely crazy to allow the defender to keep writing rules at will).

 

ergo, The defender, per the deed, cannot specify the race dates nor delay the racing on their own...therefore the only way you can NOT race on the first day is through a mutually agreed conditions that limit the racing with the challenger. Otherwise, with no agreement, they race as scheduled with no limits...per the Deed.

 

Y'all try to make this so hard....it's simple really.

Sorry, I don't understand your point of view here. Isn't what you and RHough are stating here a bit like saying "the defending club may define no rules, as they would be less permissive than the DoG"? Please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you guys suggesting that there should be no wind and wave limit? What would be a fair limit? 20kts? 30kts? Gusting to 40?

I think DZ is a fast tri but it is nowhere as strong as Groupama 3 for example.

If you calculate the average wind over 5-10 minutes then 15 knots means gusts to 20, which is a lot for these toys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this mean BOR willn't be sailing for 5 days?

post-2759-1257888808_thumb.jpg

How would you write this? Reread with paranoia off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of these issues are tricky. On the one hand, some of the stuff stated in the NoR is against what JSK has already rules ("shall not exceed"), some of it is a bit silly (1m wave height).

 

However, they have defined the rules and given BO the venue that they wanted, and I wonder how much kick-back BO are going to get with JSK as a result of that. She has already said that she didn't want to revisit the rules issue.

 

 

. . . but I don't think BO will have trouble getting round the sloop issue providing they use a foresail in their solid rig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
those who sail all year round will know that sailing in 15 knots when its 5 °C is very different to sailing in 15 knots at 28° C.

 

A good point.

 

Also need to take into account apparent wind. I don't know how fast these boats go to windward but the apparent wind speed would probably be close to 30 knots in 15 knots true wind.

We're fond of saying there's no such thing as bad weather only bad clothes (in Norway). These limits sure ain't there because it's too cold. A 15kn limit is low, but I'd rather see two or three races than a breakdown in the first race. Pending rebuttal by Jake or RHough on my question in a previous post (pray excuse my lunch break raptus), I think it'll hold in court.

 

Incidentally, the oh-but-it's-so-cold argument falls nicely in line with the Deed's hemisphere clauses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure you need that 1m wave height rule.

Suckers are 90 feet long.

That is like 1 foot wave limits for us mere mortals.

 

Did you see Dogzilla coming off the mooring as that tugboat went by.

 

Every boat around it got bounced a couple times from the waves.

The mast never even twitched.

 

Looks like one stable s.o.b.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not sure you need that 1m wave height rule.

Suckers are 90 feet long.

That is like 1 foot wave limits for us mere mortals.

 

Did you see Dogzilla coming off the mooring as that tugboat went by.

 

Every boat around it got bounced a couple times from the waves.

The mast never even twitched.

 

Looks like one stable s.o.b.

 

asslinghi don't need a 1 mtr wave limit for safety reasons

 

they just don't want any water slapping against their dolphin striker and slowing them down

 

a 1mtr limit has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with using the rules to leverage any possible advantage they might have into a winning edge

 

it's what they always do, it's very unsportsman like and basically shows why they are not fit to administer a charitable trust based on friendly competition between nations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything in here that differs from the SNG annual regatta rules at the time of the challenge....

 

Will fall flat in front of JK. No matter how much the Jedi tries to spin it, I don't think she'll believe him if she's got a well written and reasoned brief (that she's read) from DB and Company.

 

She was all over BBBLO last time over his client's intention to change the rules in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys against the wind and wave limit wan't to kill James Spithill???, you need a martyr for the cause or something??

 

It is perfectly reasonable to set a wind limit of 15kn, some expert around can estimate the speeds these things will achieve with 15kn TWS, speed NONE (or maybe just a few) of you have NEVER experienced on a sail boat, let alone on a 90' feet cat or tri with a wing...

 

Now I ask you how can BOR reef the wing if there is too much wind? Or how can they change from wing to conventional mainsail+mast in the time between the forecast is accurate enough to know there will be too much wind for the wing and the warning signal

 

Again, DOGzilla can suffer a major issue in 5kn flat water, what could happen in 20kn and 2 meter swell...

 

If the Deed says "its rules" and those rules today are the ISAF rules and the amendments to those rules permitted by the ISAF and the Court, the Race Committee can abandon the race if they believe it is not safe... The Deed does not speak about safety, how could GS ever EVER imagine that in 150 or so years there would be boats capable of sailing at 2x TWS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of these issues are tricky. On the one hand, some of the stuff stated in the NoR is against what JSK has already rules ("shall not exceed"), some of it is a bit silly (1m wave height).

 

However, they have defined the rules and given BO the venue that they wanted, and I wonder how much kick-back BO are going to get with JSK as a result of that. She has already said that she didn't want to revisit the rules issue.

 

 

. . . but I don't think BO will have trouble getting round the sloop issue providing they use a foresail in their solid rig.

 

No, what JSK said was that she does not want to revisit the elimination of the six ISAF rules (because GGYC didn's contest them), and very importantly she said that her general comments about SNG being able to change additional rules going forward was just an overly broad comment and not a decision, then entertained discussion two tuesdays ago which is when BO the jedi lawyer walked all over DB and at the time DB couldn't make any of GGYC rules concerns so much as raise her eyebrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of these issues are tricky. On the one hand, some of the stuff stated in the NoR is against what JSK has already rules ("shall not exceed"), some of it is a bit silly (1m wave height).

 

However, they have defined the rules and given BO the venue that they wanted, and I wonder how much kick-back BO are going to get with JSK as a result of that. She has already said that she didn't want to revisit the rules issue.

 

 

. . . but I don't think BO will have trouble getting round the sloop issue providing they use a foresail in their solid rig.

 

No, what JSK said was that she does not want to revisit the elimination of the six ISAF rules (because GGYC didn's contest them), and very importantly she said that her general comments about SNG being able to change additional rules going forward was just an overly broad comment and not a decision, then entertained discussion two tuesdays ago which is when BO the jedi lawyer walked all over DB and at the time DB couldn't make any of GGYC rules concerns so much as raise her eyebrow.

Weren't Jedis supposed to be good-guys? :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Weren't Jedis supposed to be good-guys? :-D"

 

I was waiting for someone to say that! :lol:

If he is the Jedi then BMWO is the Sith, LE is Palpatine and RC is Darth Vader (he became so when he turned to the dark side by LE).

Loick Peyron is obviously Yoda, EB and Ed i'm not sure of maybe Obi-Wan or Qui-Gon, works either way.

 

palpatine.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites