2146 replies to this topic

[onimod]

The one coming out smelling like shit is the Chief Measurer, rather than the IJ decision. The MC rendered an interpretation at Telefornicator's request before the start of leg 4 which imo did not conflict with the clarification interpretation upon which the protest was lodged (contrary to the IJ decision). Imo, the only thing the CM can be accused of is in not volunteering the obvious NOR position that any additional storm jib or HWJs will not be counted in the storm jibs quota but in the headsails quota.

The IJ's claim that Tele was "reasonableto believe her sail inventory on leg 4 was in compliance" after the MC's reply in Sanya is BS. I don't accept that it was the CM's obligation to inform Telefornicator that the extra storm jibs will count as headsails for the purposes of the permitted number of sails: he was not specifically asked, nor should he have been. NOR 5.2.2 is quite specific:


5.2.2 In addition to the sails required to be on board in NOR 5.2.1(a) a Boat may carry on
board sails to a maximum of:
(a) 1 Mainsail
[b]2 Headsails (which may include additional HWJ's and storm jibs)

Telefonica raced leg 4 with more headsails than they were legally entitled to. The Chief Measurer did not need to issue a "clarification interpretation" at all on 5.2.2: every other team clearly understood NOR 5.2.2b and complied with it.

The IJ fucked up: the protest should have been upheld.

-

Noting that in the NOR, Headsail is effectivelty defined as a headsail other than the required storm jib and heavy weather jib. This changes the ISAF definition of headsail.

Do you know for certain that telefonica had 5 headsails (in the ISAF generic definition) on board - 1 required storm jib + 1 required heavy weather jib + a second storm jib + 2 Headsails? The facts found indicate that they sailed with 2 storm jibs and 2 headsails. However, when an additional storm jib is carried it is measured in as a Headsail, and so counts as one of the 2 Headsails, by definition. By definition thererfore, i read the facts found as describing a double counting of the additional storm jib, once as one of the two storm jibs, and once as one of the two Headsails. There is no indication in the facts found that they sailed with extra sails, and the fact that they had a sign-off at either end of the leg confirms that they were in compliance. In fact, the interpretation on 16 March was to clarify the "may include additional ... storm jibs." in NOR 5.2.2("which probably should have been drafted as "additional storm jibs and heavy weather jibs shall be counted as headsails", may being ambiguous.

If you know for certain that they carried 5 headsails (as indicated above) and can cite the documentation (likely the sail inventory manifest provided to the Chief Measurer or the report of the Chief Measurer at the start and finish of the leg) then that would be very much appreciated. Otherwise, the facts stand that Telefonica sailed with 10 sails as noted and your opinion ignores the facts.

Hear hear.
Of course anyone can quote 1 clause and see the world in black and white, but it's the combination of clauses that's the problem.
I don't doubt that the black and white view is the one the rule writers had in mind when they wrote the rules but they didn't quite get it right and so what they have written is grey.
Telefonica chose to read it one way; apparently 5 other boats chose to read it another.
I also wonder whether it really was advantageous on leg 4.
We'd need to see a sail log to know for sure, both in terms of the use of the actual sail in question but also in terms of the sail they didn't carry compared to the other 5 boats.

[Indio]

The one coming out smelling like shit is the Chief Measurer, rather than the IJ decision. The MC rendered an interpretation at Telefornicator's request before the start of leg 4 which imo did not conflict with the clarification interpretation upon which the protest was lodged (contrary to the IJ decision). Imo, the only thing the CM can be accused of is in not volunteering the obvious NOR position that any additional storm jib or HWJs will not be counted in the storm jibs quota but in the headsails quota.

The IJ's claim that Tele was "reasonableto believe her sail inventory on leg 4 was in compliance" after the MC's reply in Sanya is BS. I don't accept that it was the CM's obligation to inform Telefornicator that the extra storm jibs will count as headsails for the purposes of the permitted number of sails: he was not specifically asked, nor should he have been. NOR 5.2.2 is quite specific:


5.2.2 In addition to the sails required to be on board in NOR 5.2.1(a) a Boat may carry on
board sails to a maximum of:
(a) 1 Mainsail
[b]2 Headsails (which may include additional HWJ's and storm jibs)

Telefonica raced leg 4 with more headsails than they were legally entitled to. The Chief Measurer did not need to issue a "clarification interpretation" at all on 5.2.2: every other team clearly understood NOR 5.2.2b and complied with it.

The IJ fucked up: the protest should have been upheld.

-

Noting that in the NOR, Headsail is effectivelty defined as a headsail other than the required storm jib and heavy weather jib. This changes the ISAF definition of headsail.

Do you know for certain that telefonica had 5 headsails (in the ISAF generic definition) on board - 1 required storm jib + 1 required heavy weather jib + a second storm jib + 2 Headsails? The facts found indicate that they sailed with 2 storm jibs and 2 headsails. However, when an additional storm jib is carried it is measured in as a Headsail, and so counts as one of the 2 Headsails, by definition. By definition thererfore, i read the facts found as describing a double counting of the additional storm jib, once as one of the two storm jibs, and once as one of the two Headsails.

I disagree: if, as you've read it, Tele carried 2 storm jibs, then the protest would have cited NOR 5.2.1(a). I don't believe that the protest was based on a "double-counting" of the "2 storm jibs" as you've surmised. That the protest specifically cited NOR 5.2.2b as the rule infracted against suggests to me that Tele did carry their full complement of 2 headsails plus 2 storm jibs (or perhaps even an extra HWJ), the extra one being automatically counted as a headsail under 5.2.2b's "additional HWJ's and storm jibs" qualification. Hence the protest.

If, on the other hand, I'm to accept your view of the double-counting of the second storm jib and that Tele sailed with 10 sails, then you're suggesting that they dropped their storm trysail (as Ken Read did) for the second storm jib? Even if this comprises the "facts" you refer to, then they have clearly contravened 5.2.2b as cited in the protest.

"Facts" 1.4 of the decision is, imo, a red-herring: there are any number of sports codes where it is encumbent upon the competitors to ensure they comply with the rules both at any pre-event checks and in post-event checks.

Imo, the jury's reliance on the CM's and RC's separate "interpretations" to decide that the entire NOR5.2 is ambiguous is too convenient, and overlooks the clarity of 5.2.2b which quite succinctly states if you want to take an extra storm jib or an extra HWJ, then you will need to drop one headsail.

The decision reeks of other considerations. The protest demonstrably had merit, and should have been upheld.

PS: I read somewhere else that Camper have appealed the decision. Good for them - I believe they'll prevail.

[crashdog]

Can you provide the data showing that in fact Telefonica carried 5 headsails. Anything else is conjecture; the decision of those who have seen the information and heard the witness is what we have to go on at this point. If you have read "somewhere" that Camper is appealing then could you please provide the link? Of course, in the appeal, the facts found remain as stated.

[thetruth]

Agreed. Saddest thing here is that they employ people to do these jobs and yet here we are again. Does anyone really wonder why no one understands our sport?

Can you provide the data showing that in fact Telefonica carried 5 headsails. Anything else is conjecture; the decision of those who have seen the information and heard the witness is what we have to go on at this point. If you have read "somewhere" that Camper is appealing then could you please provide the link? Of course, in the appeal, the facts found remain as stated.

[tomtom]

The one coming out smelling like shit is the Chief Measurer, rather than the IJ decision. The MC rendered an interpretation at Telefornicator's request before the start of leg 4 which imo did not conflict with the clarification interpretation upon which the protest was lodged (contrary to the IJ decision). Imo, the only thing the CM can be accused of is in not volunteering the obvious NOR position that any additional storm jib or HWJs will not be counted in the storm jibs quota but in the headsails quota.

The IJ's claim that Tele was "reasonableto believe her sail inventory on leg 4 was in compliance" after the MC's reply in Sanya is BS. I don't accept that it was the CM's obligation to inform Telefornicator that the extra storm jibs will count as headsails for the purposes of the permitted number of sails: he was not specifically asked, nor should he have been. NOR 5.2.2 is quite specific:


5.2.2 In addition to the sails required to be on board in NOR 5.2.1(a) a Boat may carry on
board sails to a maximum of:
(a) 1 Mainsail
[b]2 Headsails (which may include additional HWJ's and storm jibs)

Telefonica raced leg 4 with more headsails than they were legally entitled to. The Chief Measurer did not need to issue a "clarification interpretation" at all on 5.2.2: every other team clearly understood NOR 5.2.2b and complied with it.

The IJ fucked up: the protest should have been upheld.

-

Noting that in the NOR, Headsail is effectivelty defined as a headsail other than the required storm jib and heavy weather jib. This changes the ISAF definition of headsail.

Do you know for certain that telefonica had 5 headsails (in the ISAF generic definition) on board - 1 required storm jib + 1 required heavy weather jib + a second storm jib + 2 Headsails? The facts found indicate that they sailed with 2 storm jibs and 2 headsails. However, when an additional storm jib is carried it is measured in as a Headsail, and so counts as one of the 2 Headsails, by definition. By definition thererfore, i read the facts found as describing a double counting of the additional storm jib, once as one of the two storm jibs, and once as one of the two Headsails. There is no indication in the facts found that they sailed with extra sails, and the fact that they had a sign-off at either end of the leg confirms that they were in compliance. In fact, the interpretation on 16 March was to clarify the "may include additional ... storm jibs." in NOR 5.2.2("which probably should have been drafted as "additional storm jibs and heavy weather jibs shall be counted as headsails", may being ambiguous.

If you know for certain that they carried 5 headsails (as indicated above) and can cite the documentation (likely the sail inventory manifest provided to the Chief Measurer or the report of the Chief Measurer at the start and finish of the leg) then that would be very much appreciated. Otherwise, the facts stand that Telefonica sailed with 10 sails as noted and your opinion ignores the facts.

These are the options as I see them:
Under rules
Sails 5.2.1 5.2.2 Total Telefonica Option 1 Telefonica Option 1 Under New Clarification
storm jib 1 1 2 2 Illegal, maximum is 1
heavy weather jib 1 1 1 1 OK, must have 1
storm trysail 1 1 1 1 OK, must have 1
mainsail 1 1 1 1 OK
headsails 2 2 2 2 OK
spinnakers 3 3 2 3 OK, max = 3
staysail 1 1 1 0 OK, max = 1
Total 10 10 10

EDIT: Anyone know how to lign up tables properly?

Opt 1: they kept the staysail, reduced number of spinnakers to 2 or
Opt 2: use extra storm jib as staysail, keep the spinnakers at 3

What the benefit of either option is, I don't really know, but a guess is that the extra stormjib to be used as a flatter staysail for heavy upwind conditions might have been beneficial (i.e. option 1)? Ken Read seems to suggest as much.

[Indio]

Can you provide the data showing that in fact Telefonica carried 5 headsails. Anything else is conjecture; the decision of those who have seen the information and heard the witness is what we have to go on at this point. If you have read "somewhere" that Camper is appealing then could you please provide the link? Of course, in the appeal, the facts found remain as stated.

Why "5 headsails" !?! NOR 5.2.1a specifies 3 specialist sails, 5.2.2b specifies 2 headsails. Where do you get the "5 headsails" from?!? And while you're scratching your butt trying to answer that, why don't you show me the data that Telefonica did NOT contravene 5.2.2b. The IJ's decision hangs solely on:

1) the pre-Feb 18 reply to Telefonica's questions from the Race Director and Chief Measurer that "the NOR placed a minimum, not a maximum, on the number of storm jibs that could be carried";
2) the presumption that the silence by the Chief Measurer over Telefonica's declared sail inventory in Sanya was somewhat an "approval";
3) the presumption that the March 18th RC interpretation of NORs 5.2.1a and 5.2.2b was the catalyst for the protest;

Imo, the March 18 "interpretation" was not necessary for the protest to be lodged. The CM checked Telefonica's sail inventory in Auckland on 11th March and didn't file a report: it was only until the March 18 "interpretation" by the RC which switched on a light in the CM's head prompting him to report. By carrying an extra storm jib and their full complement of headsails (2), Telefonica broke NOR 5.2.2b, period! Ignorance of the rules is no defence: the rule they broke was clear to the other 5 competitors.

NOR15 clearly declares that only the "OA and RC ...may answer questions, make amendments and issue interpretations to the NOR & SI's and the VIG may make amendments and issue Interpretations to the Volvo Open 70 Rule v.3..." More specifically, NOR15 goes on to declare that (an) "answer or an interpretation may not change a Rule".

Break a rule = pay the ferryman!!

[the paradox of thrift]

Can you provide the data showing that in fact Telefonica carried 5 headsails. Anything else is conjecture; the decision of those who have seen the information and heard the witness is what we have to go on at this point. If you have read "somewhere" that Camper is appealing then could you please provide the link? Of course, in the appeal, the facts found remain as stated.

Why "5 headsails" !?! NOR 5.2.1a specifies 3 specialist sails, 5.2.2b specifies 2 headsails. Where do you get the "5 headsails" from?!? And while you're scratching your butt trying to answer that, why don't you show me the data that Telefonica did NOT contravene 5.2.2b. The IJ's decision hangs solely on:

1) the pre-Feb 18 reply to Telefonica's questions from the Race Director and Chief Measurer that "the NOR placed a minimum, not a maximum, on the number of storm jibs that could be carried";
2) the presumption that the silence by the Chief Measurer over Telefonica's declared sail inventory in Sanya was somewhat an "approval";
3) the presumption that the March 18th RC interpretation of NORs 5.2.1a and 5.2.2b was the catalyst for the protest;

Imo, the March 18 "interpretation" was not necessary for the protest to be lodged. The CM checked Telefonica's sail inventory in Auckland on 11th March and didn't file a report: it was only until the March 18 "interpretation" by the RC which switched on a light in the CM's head prompting him to report. By carrying an extra storm jib and their full complement of headsails (2), Telefonica broke NOR 5.2.2b, period! Ignorance of the rules is no defence: the rule they broke was clear to the other 5 competitors.

NOR15 clearly declares that only the "OA and RC ...may answer questions, make amendments and issue interpretations to the NOR & SI's and the VIG may make amendments and issue Interpretations to the Volvo Open 70 Rule v.3..." More specifically, NOR15 goes on to declare that (an) "answer or an interpretation may not change a Rule".

Break a rule = pay the ferryman!!

This actually sounds convincing

[thetruth]

Want to make a contribution to the future of NZ Youth Sailing tough guy on the basis that the IJ has NEVER been over ruled particularly in a case like this? Your or Dalts monthly salary would be nice.

Can you provide the data showing that in fact Telefonica carried 5 headsails. Anything else is conjecture; the decision of those who have seen the information and heard the witness is what we have to go on at this point. If you have read "somewhere" that Camper is appealing then could you please provide the link? Of course, in the appeal, the facts found remain as stated.

Why "5 headsails" !?! NOR 5.2.1a specifies 3 specialist sails, 5.2.2b specifies 2 headsails. Where do you get the "5 headsails" from?!? And while you're scratching your butt trying to answer that, why don't you show me the data that Telefonica did NOT contravene 5.2.2b. The IJ's decision hangs solely on:

1) the pre-Feb 18 reply to Telefonica's questions from the Race Director and Chief Measurer that "the NOR placed a minimum, not a maximum, on the number of storm jibs that could be carried";
2) the presumption that the silence by the Chief Measurer over Telefonica's declared sail inventory in Sanya was somewhat an "approval";
3) the presumption that the March 18th RC interpretation of NORs 5.2.1a and 5.2.2b was the catalyst for the protest;

Imo, the March 18 "interpretation" was not necessary for the protest to be lodged. The CM checked Telefonica's sail inventory in Auckland on 11th March and didn't file a report: it was only until the March 18 "interpretation" by the RC which switched on a light in the CM's head prompting him to report. By carrying an extra storm jib and their full complement of headsails (2), Telefonica broke NOR 5.2.2b, period! Ignorance of the rules is no defence: the rule they broke was clear to the other 5 competitors.

NOR15 clearly declares that only the "OA and RC ...may answer questions, make amendments and issue interpretations to the NOR & SI's and the VIG may make amendments and issue Interpretations to the Volvo Open 70 Rule v.3..." More specifically, NOR15 goes on to declare that (an) "answer or an interpretation may not change a Rule".

Break a rule = pay the ferryman!!

[Dave S]

PS: I read somewhere else that Camper have appealed the decision. Good for them - I believe they'll prevail.

If true, not a particularly classy thing to do...

[tomtom]

The one coming out smelling like shit is the Chief Measurer, rather than the IJ decision. The MC rendered an interpretation at Telefornicator's request before the start of leg 4 which imo did not conflict with the clarification interpretation upon which the protest was lodged (contrary to the IJ decision). Imo, the only thing the CM can be accused of is in not volunteering the obvious NOR position that any additional storm jib or HWJs will not be counted in the storm jibs quota but in the headsails quota.

The IJ's claim that Tele was "reasonableto believe her sail inventory on leg 4 was in compliance" after the MC's reply in Sanya is BS. I don't accept that it was the CM's obligation to inform Telefornicator that the extra storm jibs will count as headsails for the purposes of the permitted number of sails: he was not specifically asked, nor should he have been. NOR 5.2.2 is quite specific:


5.2.2 In addition to the sails required to be on board in NOR 5.2.1(a) a Boat may carry on
board sails to a maximum of:
(a) 1 Mainsail
[b]2 Headsails (which may include additional HWJ's and storm jibs)

Telefonica raced leg 4 with more headsails than they were legally entitled to. The Chief Measurer did not need to issue a "clarification interpretation" at all on 5.2.2: every other team clearly understood NOR 5.2.2b and complied with it.

The IJ fucked up: the protest should have been upheld.

-

Noting that in the NOR, Headsail is effectivelty defined as a headsail other than the required storm jib and heavy weather jib. This changes the ISAF definition of headsail.

Do you know for certain that telefonica had 5 headsails (in the ISAF generic definition) on board - 1 required storm jib + 1 required heavy weather jib + a second storm jib + 2 Headsails? The facts found indicate that they sailed with 2 storm jibs and 2 headsails. However, when an additional storm jib is carried it is measured in as a Headsail, and so counts as one of the 2 Headsails, by definition. By definition thererfore, i read the facts found as describing a double counting of the additional storm jib, once as one of the two storm jibs, and once as one of the two Headsails. There is no indication in the facts found that they sailed with extra sails, and the fact that they had a sign-off at either end of the leg confirms that they were in compliance. In fact, the interpretation on 16 March was to clarify the "may include additional ... storm jibs." in NOR 5.2.2("which probably should have been drafted as "additional storm jibs and heavy weather jibs shall be counted as headsails", may being ambiguous.

If you know for certain that they carried 5 headsails (as indicated above) and can cite the documentation (likely the sail inventory manifest provided to the Chief Measurer or the report of the Chief Measurer at the start and finish of the leg) then that would be very much appreciated. Otherwise, the facts stand that Telefonica sailed with 10 sails as noted and your opinion ignores the facts.

These are the options as I see them:


EDIT: Anyone know how to lign up tables properly?

Opt 1: they kept the staysail, reduced number of spinnakers to 2 or
Opt 2: use extra storm jib as staysail, keep the spinnakers at 3

What the benefit of either option is, I don't really know, but a guess is that the extra stormjib to be used as a flatter staysail for heavy upwind conditions might have been beneficial (i.e. option 1)? Ken Read seems to suggest as much.

[Indio]

PS: I read somewhere else that Camper have appealed the decision. Good for them - I believe they'll prevail.

If true, not a particularly classy thing to do...

I suppose you believe cheating is real classy!!

[tomtom]

PS: I read somewhere else that Camper have appealed the decision. Good for them - I believe they'll prevail.

If true, not a particularly classy thing to do...

I suppose you believe cheating is real classy!!

No, but they have been judged by the right(ful) authority to be not cheating, therefore, to appeal is to bleat. It's like rugby vs footbal (soccer): no-one moans at the ref in rugby, they would be thrown out and it is seen to be "not classy". (All Blacks know all about that after having been thrown out of the world cup against France in Cardiff a few years back now after a blatant foul pass by the French. No ref decision, but no moaning from them either- I was there and was impressed by the lack of whinging) Perhaps Camper can learn a thing or 2 from them.

[Dave S]

I suppose you believe cheating is real classy!!

Wrong. The IJ has established that no cheating took place.

Tele put together an advantageous sail inventory, within the rules as they understood them (confirmed twice by the CM and now by the IJ). This is no different to designing/building a better boat than the opposition (which every team bar Sanya has attempted to do). If a team turned up with an innovative faster (but legal) boat, and used it to wipe the board, would you accuse them of cheating?

Appealing against the IJ is the sort of sour grapes behaviour you'd expect from a team who can't win on the water and think that a (highly unlikely) courtroom victory is actually worth winning. I think that the guys on Camper are rather better than that.

It doesn't matter how p*ssed off you are with the verdict; the grown-up thing to do in this situation is to accept it and move on...

[Indio]

I suppose you believe cheating is real classy!!

Wrong. The IJ has established that no cheating took place.

Tele put together an advantageous sail inventory, within the rules as they understood them (confirmed twice by the CM and now by the IJ). This is no different to designing/building a better boat than the opposition (which every team bar Sanya has attempted to do). If a team turned up with an innovative faster (but legal) boat, and used it to wipe the board, would you accuse them of cheating?

Appealing against the IJ is the sort of sour grapes behaviour you'd expect from a team who can't win on the water and think that a (highly unlikely) courtroom victory is actually worth winning. I think that the guys on Camper are rather better than that.

It doesn't matter how p*ssed off you are with the verdict; the grown-up thing to do in this situation is to accept it and move on...

This is like the classic "good loser" platitudes tossed about so generously: there are no "good losers", only those who've had a lot of practice at losing. It's so much easier to be noble from the sideline. In the real world I live in, if a legal decision goes against the law, it's perfectly acceptable to appeal it: nothing to do with sour grapes. Same applies to the IJ decision, although I rather fancy there are other considerations at play.

Your analogy of an innovative design approach within the rules is irrelevant: Camper's bowsprit being a classic example. Blatantly ignoring the rule is cheating. There's a world of difference in being clever with the rules versus ignoring them.

[Ballast Technician]

Can you provide the data showing that in fact Telefonica carried 5 headsails. Anything else is conjecture; the decision of those who have seen the information and heard the witness is what we have to go on at this point. If you have read "somewhere" that Camper is appealing then could you please provide the link? Of course, in the appeal, the facts found remain as stated.

Why "5 headsails" !?! NOR 5.2.1a specifies 3 specialist sails, 5.2.2b specifies 2 headsails. Where do you get the "5 headsails" from?!? And while you're scratching your butt trying to answer that, why don't you show me the data that Telefonica did NOT contravene 5.2.2b. The IJ's decision hangs solely on:

1) the pre-Feb 18 reply to Telefonica's questions from the Race Director and Chief Measurer that "the NOR placed a minimum, not a maximum, on the number of storm jibs that could be carried";
2) the presumption that the silence by the Chief Measurer over Telefonica's declared sail inventory in Sanya was somewhat an "approval";
3) the presumption that the March 18th RC interpretation of NORs 5.2.1a and 5.2.2b was the catalyst for the protest;

No, the decision does not "hang" on these, let alone solely so. The decisions is based on the fact that the IJ deemed NoR 5.2 to be ambiguous. The whole thing with Telefonica's inquiry and the CM's actions were just indicators and catalysts.

Imo, the March 18 "interpretation" was not necessary for the protest to be lodged. The CM checked Telefonica's sail inventory in Auckland on 11th March and didn't file a report: it was only until the March 18 "interpretation" by the RC which switched on a light in the CM's head prompting him to report. By carrying an extra storm jib and their full complement of headsails (2), Telefonica broke NOR 5.2.2b, period! Ignorance of the rules is no defence: the rule they broke was clear to the other 5 competitors.

NOR15 clearly declares that only the "OA and RC ...may answer questions, make amendments and issue interpretations to the NOR & SI's and the VIG may make amendments and issue Interpretations to the Volvo Open 70 Rule v.3..." More specifically, NOR15 goes on to declare that (an) "answer or an interpretation may not change a Rule".

Break a rule = pay the ferryman!!

Not so. Again, the IJ found that the NoR was ambiguous before the RC's interpretation. The IJ was satisfied that there were (at least) two different acceptable interpretations of NoR 5.2 - Telefonica's and the one subsequently made by the RC.

Following the RC's announcement, only that particular interpretation of the rule is to be used. That does not change the rule itself.

[Indio]

PS: I read somewhere else that Camper have appealed the decision. Good for them - I believe they'll prevail.

If true, not a particularly classy thing to do...

I suppose you believe cheating is real classy!!

No, but they have been judged by the right(ful) authority to be not cheating, therefore, to appeal is to bleat. It's like rugby vs footbal (soccer): no-one moans at the ref in rugby, they would be thrown out and it is seen to be "not classy". (All Blacks know all about that after having been thrown out of the world cup against France in Cardiff a few years back now after a blatant foul pass by the French. No ref decision, but no moaning from them either- I was there and was impressed by the lack of whinging) Perhaps Camper can learn a thing or 2 from them.

The ref's decision in Cardiff was not appealable, so your reference to it is irrelevant. VOR have rules and procedures governing the RRs and NORs, including appropriate penalties. The IJ's decision is wrong, imo, and should be appealed as it affects the rest of the field not just Camper.

[Ballast Technician]

PS: I read somewhere else that Camper have appealed the decision. Good for them - I believe they'll prevail.

If true, not a particularly classy thing to do...

I suppose you believe cheating is real classy!!

No, but they have been judged by the right(ful) authority to be not cheating, therefore, to appeal is to bleat. It's like rugby vs footbal (soccer): no-one moans at the ref in rugby, they would be thrown out and it is seen to be "not classy". (All Blacks know all about that after having been thrown out of the world cup against France in Cardiff a few years back now after a blatant foul pass by the French. No ref decision, but no moaning from them either- I was there and was impressed by the lack of whinging) Perhaps Camper can learn a thing or 2 from them.

I disagree with that analogy. In rugby (as in most other sports) the referee is the final decision-maker for (most) on-field questions. There is no appeals process for these. Sailing, and the VOR specifically, is different - there is a clearly defined protest and appeals process. It is not whinging or bleating to follow this process and appeal a decision of the first instance if one disagrees with it - same way that one can (under certain, well-defined circumstances) appeal the ruling of a lower court in a higher one in legal disputes.

[Ballast Technician]

PS: I read somewhere else that Camper have appealed the decision. Good for them - I believe they'll prevail.

If true, not a particularly classy thing to do...

I suppose you believe cheating is real classy!!

No, but they have been judged by the right(ful) authority to be not cheating, therefore, to appeal is to bleat. It's like rugby vs footbal (soccer): no-one moans at the ref in rugby, they would be thrown out and it is seen to be "not classy". (All Blacks know all about that after having been thrown out of the world cup against France in Cardiff a few years back now after a blatant foul pass by the French. No ref decision, but no moaning from them either- I was there and was impressed by the lack of whinging) Perhaps Camper can learn a thing or 2 from them.

The ref's decision in Cardiff was not appealable, so your reference to it is irrelevant. VOR have rules and procedures governing the RRs and NORs, including appropriate penalties. The IJ's decision is wrong, imo, and should be appealed as it affects the rest of the field not just Camper.

+1, even if it saddens me to agree with I(n)diot (Note: I only agree with his point on the process, not necessarily with his issues re. the IJ's ruling).

[Dave S]

This is like the classic "good loser" platitudes tossed about so generously: there are no "good losers", only those who've had a lot of practice at losing. It's so much easier to be noble from the sideline. In the real world I live in, if a legal decision goes against the law, it's perfectly acceptable to appeal it: nothing to do with sour grapes. Same applies to the IJ decision, although I rather fancy there are other considerations at play.

Your analogy of an innovative design approach within the rules is irrelevant: Camper's bowsprit being a classic example. Blatantly ignoring the rule is cheating. There's a world of difference in being clever with the rules versus ignoring them.

But Tele didn't blatantly ignore the rule; they sought clarification and then acted on that. Therefore they didn't cheat.

As the great Paul Elvstrom famously said, "You haven't won the race, if in winning the race you have lost the respect of your competitors". I guess this isn't a sentiment you'd subscribe to...

[NotASailor]

From CAMPER's Facebook page



CAMPER to seek redress on jury decision
by Camper with Emirates Team New Zealand on Friday, 20 April 2012 at 12:57 ·CAMPER with Emirates Team New Zealand will seek redress on the decision by the international jury to dismiss a protest regarding Team Telefónica's sails during Leg 4.



The jury decided the original rule was ambiguous and that Telefónica were reasonable in assuming they were in compliance.



However, CAMPER has applied to the jury seeking redress as the team believes that Telefónica gained an unfair advantage from carrying the extra sail on board for Leg 4 in which Telefónica finished less than two minutes ahead of CAMPER.



The potential redress options available to the jury are open but would most likely include awarding of extra points and or placing CAMPER ahead of Telefónica on the leaderboard for Leg 4,



CAMPER skipper Chris Nicholson says that team were disappointed that the jury had dismissed the protest and that seeking redress was necessary to ensure a fair result.



“We were very disappointed and surprised that the jury took this action. It seems unfair to us that we lost Leg 4 by under two minutes to a boat that was breaking the rules and carrying an extra sail than us. It’s the equivalent of a golfer carrying an extra club in their bag.



“The reality is that Telefónica were given a flawed rule interpretation by the Organising Authority, that was not communicated to other teams as required by the rules and were therefore able to sail with an unfair advantage during the leg.



“This is no dark art. There is hard evidence that the type of extra sail that Telefónica carried would have given them a performance advantage. That performance advantage could very easily equate to the 1m 33s margin that Telefónica beat us by into Auckland.



“The system has broken down and we are left with no choice but to pursue redress. I think it’s clear and obvious what actions the jury needs to take to ensure a fair result in Leg 4.



“We have nothing to hide and will be putting our case robustly to the jury.”



The international jury is due to hear CAMPER’s submission for redress tomorrow morning local time.

[Who's your daddy]

Camper's action seems perfectly reasonable and justified. RRS 62.1 states "A request for redress....shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat's score in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse by an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee or organizing authority..."
By making a verbal interpretation of the Notice of Race, the race organizer has made an improper action as NOR 13.3 was not followed and the answer given verbally to Telefonica which allowed them to carry this sail was not posted on the noticeboard.

[Indio]

Can you provide the data showing that in fact Telefonica carried 5 headsails. Anything else is conjecture; the decision of those who have seen the information and heard the witness is what we have to go on at this point. If you have read "somewhere" that Camper is appealing then could you please provide the link? Of course, in the appeal, the facts found remain as stated.

Why "5 headsails" !?! NOR 5.2.1a specifies 3 specialist sails, 5.2.2b specifies 2 headsails. Where do you get the "5 headsails" from?!? And while you're scratching your butt trying to answer that, why don't you show me the data that Telefonica did NOT contravene 5.2.2b. The IJ's decision hangs solely on:

1) the pre-Feb 18 reply to Telefonica's questions from the Race Director and Chief Measurer that "the NOR placed a minimum, not a maximum, on the number of storm jibs that could be carried";
2) the presumption that the silence by the Chief Measurer over Telefonica's declared sail inventory in Sanya was somewhat an "approval";
3) the presumption that the March 18th RC interpretation of NORs 5.2.1a and 5.2.2b was the catalyst for the protest;

No, the decision does not "hang" on these, let alone solely so. The decisions is based on the fact that the IJ deemed NoR 5.2 to be ambiguous. The whole thing with Telefonica's inquiry and the CM's actions were just indicators and catalysts.

Imo, the March 18 "interpretation" was not necessary for the protest to be lodged. The CM checked Telefonica's sail inventory in Auckland on 11th March and didn't file a report: it was only until the March 18 "interpretation" by the RC which switched on a light in the CM's head prompting him to report. By carrying an extra storm jib and their full complement of headsails (2), Telefonica broke NOR 5.2.2b, period! Ignorance of the rules is no defence: the rule they broke was clear to the other 5 competitors.

NOR15 clearly declares that only the "OA and RC ...may answer questions, make amendments and issue interpretations to the NOR & SI's and the VIG may make amendments and issue Interpretations to the Volvo Open 70 Rule v.3..." More specifically, NOR15 goes on to declare that (an) "answer or an interpretation may not change a Rule".

Break a rule = pay the ferryman!!

Not so. Again, the IJ found that the NoR was ambiguous before the RC's interpretation. The IJ was satisfied that there were (at least) two different acceptable interpretations of NoR 5.2 - Telefonica's and the one subsequently made by the RC.

Following the RC's announcement, only that particular interpretation of the rule is to be used. That does not change the rule itself.

You and the IJ see "ambiguity" where I see none. Telefonica left Sanya with 2 storm jibs and 2 headsails when 5.2.2b says they should have had either 1 storm jib and 2 headsails, or 2 storm jibs and 1 headsail. Telefonica's interpretation based on the reply from the Measurer (who I assume was not replying on behalf of the RC) is not the result of any ambiguity, imo. NOR5.2.1a does state a minimum number of each specialist sail to be carried: 5.2.2b clarifies the maximum number of other sails to be carried, and qualifies the conditions under which additional specialist sails can be added.
The IJ refers to the Chief Measurer's (CM) reply to Telefonica's questions as an "interpretation": it's a question of fact whether or not the CM was authorised to make and interpretation on his own, given the OA and RC are the only entities empowered to do so. Even if he were, I just don't see the "conlfict" the IJ sees between the CM's and RC's interpretations they cite as one of the reasons for rejecting the protest. The fact that the CM failed to recognise the breach of 5.2.2b and therefore did not report it under 5.3.1 does not in itself annul the breach.

[pidry]

Obviously, Telefonica was aware that the rule was ambiguous, so as not to make a mistake they asked the OA / RC for clarification and also obviously got an "okay" for their (Tele's) interpretation. So, nothing unfair in their behaviour!
And, again obvious, they did not go public and told their competition about this "ambiguity"! It is a race, so you take any advantage you find. You don't share your design "tricks" either!

+1 for Telefonica!

And, as a post scritum: I met Bernard Bonneau (Chairman of the IJ) some years ago during a regatta and had the pleasure to work with him, and IMO he is the most fair and neutral judge I ever met. To claim that "other considerations" but the relevant rules where taken into account for the decision seems highly unlikey!

http://noticeboard.v...-Telefonica.pdf

[Indio]

This is like the classic "good loser" platitudes tossed about so generously: there are no "good losers", only those who've had a lot of practice at losing. It's so much easier to be noble from the sideline. In the real world I live in, if a legal decision goes against the law, it's perfectly acceptable to appeal it: nothing to do with sour grapes. Same applies to the IJ decision, although I rather fancy there are other considerations at play.

Your analogy of an innovative design approach within the rules is irrelevant: Camper's bowsprit being a classic example. Blatantly ignoring the rule is cheating. There's a world of difference in being clever with the rules versus ignoring them.

But Tele didn't blatantly ignore the rule; they sought clarification and then acted on that. Therefore they didn't cheat.

As the great Paul Elvstrom famously said, "You haven't won the race, if in winning the race you have lost the respect of your competitors". I guess this isn't a sentiment you'd subscribe to...

Win with dishonour or lose with dignity: which would you subscribe to?

[Who's your daddy]

Can you provide the data showing that in fact Telefonica carried 5 headsails. Anything else is conjecture; the decision of those who have seen the information and heard the witness is what we have to go on at this point. If you have read "somewhere" that Camper is appealing then could you please provide the link? Of course, in the appeal, the facts found remain as stated.

Why "5 headsails" !?! NOR 5.2.1a specifies 3 specialist sails, 5.2.2b specifies 2 headsails. Where do you get the "5 headsails" from?!? And while you're scratching your butt trying to answer that, why don't you show me the data that Telefonica did NOT contravene 5.2.2b. The IJ's decision hangs solely on:

1) the pre-Feb 18 reply to Telefonica's questions from the Race Director and Chief Measurer that "the NOR placed a minimum, not a maximum, on the number of storm jibs that could be carried";
2) the presumption that the silence by the Chief Measurer over Telefonica's declared sail inventory in Sanya was somewhat an "approval";
3) the presumption that the March 18th RC interpretation of NORs 5.2.1a and 5.2.2b was the catalyst for the protest;

No, the decision does not "hang" on these, let alone solely so. The decisions is based on the fact that the IJ deemed NoR 5.2 to be ambiguous. The whole thing with Telefonica's inquiry and the CM's actions were just indicators and catalysts.

Imo, the March 18 "interpretation" was not necessary for the protest to be lodged. The CM checked Telefonica's sail inventory in Auckland on 11th March and didn't file a report: it was only until the March 18 "interpretation" by the RC which switched on a light in the CM's head prompting him to report. By carrying an extra storm jib and their full complement of headsails (2), Telefonica broke NOR 5.2.2b, period! Ignorance of the rules is no defence: the rule they broke was clear to the other 5 competitors.

NOR15 clearly declares that only the "OA and RC ...may answer questions, make amendments and issue interpretations to the NOR & SI's and the VIG may make amendments and issue Interpretations to the Volvo Open 70 Rule v.3..." More specifically, NOR15 goes on to declare that (an) "answer or an interpretation may not change a Rule".

Break a rule = pay the ferryman!!

Not so. Again, the IJ found that the NoR was ambiguous before the RC's interpretation. The IJ was satisfied that there were (at least) two different acceptable interpretations of NoR 5.2 - Telefonica's and the one subsequently made by the RC.

Following the RC's announcement, only that particular interpretation of the rule is to be used. That does not change the rule itself.

You and the IJ see "ambiguity" where I see none. Telefonica left Sanya with 2 storm jibs and 2 headsails when 5.2.2b says they should have had either 1 storm jib and 2 headsails, or 2 storm jibs and 1 headsail. Telefonica's interpretation based on the reply from the Measurer (who I assume was not replying on behalf of the RC) is not the result of any ambiguity, imo. NOR5.2.1a does state a minimum number of each specialist sail to be carried: 5.2.2b clarifies the maximum number of other sails to be carried, and qualifies the conditions under which additional specialist sails can be added.
The IJ refers to the Chief Measurer's (CM) reply to Telefonica's questions as an "interpretation": it's a question of fact whether or not the CM was authorised to make and interpretation on his own, given the OA and RC are the only entities empowered to do so. Even if he were, I just don't see the "conlfict" the IJ sees between the CM's and RC's interpretations they cite as one of the reasons for rejecting the protest. The fact that the CM failed to recognise the breach of 5.2.2b and therefore did not report it under 5.3.1 does not in itself annul the breach.

The CM does not have the authority to interpret the NOR, so he should not have been asked, and anything he says is irrelevant. The Jury shoudl have ignored this part of the defence, as it is irrelevant. It would be interesting to know whether they applied this same interpretation for all of the previous legs. If they did it is hard to believe that they still found it ambiguous after half of the race, or that they had simply changed their minds on what it meant half way through.

[Dave S]

And, as a post scritum: I met Bernard Bonneau (Chairman of the IJ) some years ago during a regatta and had the pleasure to work with him, and IMO he is the most fair and neutral judge I ever met. To claim that "other considerations" but the relevant rules where taken into account for the decision seems highly unlikey!

I've worked with (and raced against, as it happens) one of the other IJs, and rate him similarly.

I've been involved in the running of several fairly high profile international events with an IJ, and can confirm that they are completely independent of the rest of the event organisation. This doesn't necessarily make the event organiser's life easy, as they'll sometimes refuse to do what's asked of them; they're definitely not going to bias any judgements to suit the event or the event organiser!

[mario147]

Win with dishonour or lose with dignity: which would you subscribe to?

Win with honour, as Tele is doing.. Please stop crying, it is becoming boring...

[harzak]

And, as a post scritum: I met Bernard Bonneau (Chairman of the IJ) some years ago during a regatta and had the pleasure to work with him, and IMO he is the most fair and neutral judge I ever met. To claim that "other considerations" but the relevant rules where taken into account for the decision seems highly unlikey!

I've worked with (and raced against, as it happens) one of the other IJs, and rate him similarly.

I've been involved in the running of several fairly high profile international events with an IJ, and can confirm that they are completely independent of the rest of the event organisation. This doesn't necessarily make the event organiser's life easy, as they'll sometimes refuse to do what's asked of them; they're definitely not going to bias any judgements to suit the event or the event organiser!

VOR management most certainly would have benefited from Telefonica being DSQ'd because the standings in the top would have been incredibly close.

So, I'd think it's safe to say that the IJ's have not been influenced by VOR management this time.

[dogwatch]

The CM does not have the authority to interpret the NOR

Of course he does, as far as it impinges on conformance of boats to the rules. It is one of a series of documents to which he'd make reference.

[smackdaddy]

And while you're scratching your butt trying to answer that, why don't you show me the data that Telefonica did NOT contravene 5.2.2b.

"Telefónica cannot be found to have broken Notice of Race 5.2 during Leg 4," the Jury concluded.
"Protest dismissed."

http://www.volvoocea...nica-sails.html

In this case, that's pretty empirical data. Yours isn't.

Blatantly ignoring the rule is cheating. There's a world of difference in being clever with the rules versus ignoring them.

And wrong again.

The Jury found that Telefónica had sought clarification over the relevant section of the Notice of Race in an appropriate manner and that, at the time, the Chief Measurer was satisfied that they were in compliance with the rule.

"The decision we made for quite clear for us," said Bonneau. "We found that there was an ambiguity in the rules."

Man, my butt itches.

[smackdaddy]

"The reality is that Telefónica were given a flawed rule interpretation by the Organising Authority, that was not communicated to other teams as required by the rules and were therefore able to sail with an unfair advantage during the leg.

This is actually the point that merits the appeal. I think Camper is right in calling this out. It really was a failure of communication prior to the start on the part of the CM (i.e. - the OA) when the rule was questioned and obviously unclear.

Even so, I don't see how Tele should be penalized for this failure. It's a tough call.

[Dave S]

"The reality is that Telefónica were given a flawed rule interpretation by the Organising Authority, that was not communicated to other teams as required by the rules and were therefore able to sail with an unfair advantage during the leg.

This is actually the point that merits the appeal. I think Camper is right in calling this out. It really was a failure of communication prior to the start on the part of the CM (i.e. - the OA) when the rule was questioned and obviously unclear.

Even so, I don't see how Tele should be penalized for this failure. It's a tough call.

On reflection, I agree (and withdraw my criticism of Camper)

Camper appealing the decision not to DSQ Tele - not cool
Camper applying for redress on the basis of poor communication by the OA - cool. Doesn't mean they'll get it, but nothing wrong with asking...

I wouldn't like to be on the IJ for that one, but my experience is that they tend to make good decisions...

[Who's your daddy]

The CM does not have the authority to interpret the NOR

Of course he does, as far as it impinges on conformance of boats to the rules. It is one of a series of documents to which he'd make reference.

NOR 13.3 "Within their various authorities; the OA and the RC may answer questions, make amendments and issue interpretations to the NOR & SI’s..."
Unlike normal events, the CM is not a member of the OA or the RC. He is a member of the MG and the VIG, and as such does not have this authority, so his answer to the question means no more than yours or mine. Telefonica based their decision on the wrong opinion, if that is what they based it on.

[dogwatch]

^

OK, I stand corrected on that. Seems an odd way to organise things.

[Heriberto]

Camper's action seems perfectly reasonable and justified. RRS 62.1 states "A request for redress....shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat's score in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse by an improper action or omission of the race committee, protest committee or organizing authority..."
By making a verbal interpretation of the Notice of Race, the race organizer has made an improper action as NOR 13.3 was not followed and the answer given verbally to Telefonica which allowed them to carry this sail was not posted on the noticeboard.

+100

I'm surprised all of the other competitors aren't requesting redress. It was reasonable that the IJ dismissed the protest, but the reason they dismissed it was there was a clear improper action/ommision of the race committee/organizing authority and/or it's agents to give an interpretation of the rule to just one competitor which allowed that competitor to gain a significant material advantage. Even if that interpretation was upheld (which it wasn't), it was improper to give that interpretation to only one competitor. Certainly Telefonica were under no obligation to share it, so this isn't a knock on them, that was the OA's responsibility and they collectively screwed up.

[erdb]

I'm surprised all of the other competitors aren't requesting redress.

Maybe because Groupama and Puma were ahead anyway, and it doesn't make a difference for ADOR or Sanya overall.

[Panoramix]

Am I the only one thinking that the leg could eventually be cancelled on the basis that it was unfair? Or is this gone from the rules?

[Ballast Technician]

The CM does not have the authority to interpret the NOR

Of course he does, as far as it impinges on conformance of boats to the rules. It is one of a series of documents to which he'd make reference.

NOR 13.3 "Within their various authorities; the OA and the RC may answer questions, make amendments and issue interpretations to the NOR & SI's..."
Unlike normal events, the CM is not a member of the OA or the RC. He is a member of the MG and the VIG, and as such does not have this authority, so his answer to the question means no more than yours or mine. Telefonica based their decision on the wrong opinion, if that is what they based it on.

Agree, but that is not the conclusion of the IJ - the conclusion was that the rule per se was ambiguous, i.e., that it allowed for differing reasonable interpretations. The fact that the CM had interpreted the rule differently from the (subsequent) interpretation by the RC illustrates this point and probably guided the IJ in its decision but was not the basis for reaching the conclusion - the wording of the rule was.
Accordingly, a boat cannot be found to have been in breach of a the rule as long as she was complying with one reasonable interpretation of said rule - before there is an official interpretation, which then becomes the only 'reasonable' interpretation.

[Heriberto]

The CM does not have the authority to interpret the NOR

Of course he does, as far as it impinges on conformance of boats to the rules. It is one of a series of documents to which he'd make reference.

NOR 13.3 "Within their various authorities; the OA and the RC may answer questions, make amendments and issue interpretations to the NOR & SI's..."
Unlike normal events, the CM is not a member of the OA or the RC. He is a member of the MG and the VIG, and as such does not have this authority, so his answer to the question means no more than yours or mine. Telefonica based their decision on the wrong opinion, if that is what they based it on.

Agree, but that is not the conclusion of the IJ - the conclusion was that the rule per se was ambiguous, i.e., that it allowed for differing reasonable interpretations. The fact that the CM had interpreted the rule differently from the (subsequent) interpretation by the RC illustrates this point and probably guided the IJ in its decision but was not the basis for reaching the conclusion - the wording of the rule was.
Accordingly, a boat cannot be found to have been in breach of a the rule as long as she was complying with one reasonable interpretation of said rule - before there is an official interpretation, which then becomes the only 'reasonable' interpretation.

That is also true and I agree Telefonica didn't do anything wrong, but it misses the point, which is in the context of redress. It isn't improper or an omission to write an ambiguous rule, but it is improper to give an interpretation of the rule to one competitor that isn't communicated to the rest, that gives them a material advantage which affects the other competitors finish.

If Telefonica hadn't asked the CM, or if the CM had communicated that answer to all competitors, then no redress would have been warranted, but when the CM gave an interpretation of the rule to Telefonica that wasn't communicated to any other boat, that was an improper action/ommision and the other boats finish was clearly impacted since they didn't have the same information as Telefonica.

Not that I think the PC will grant redress, they want to sweep this under the rug. I just think it is the right thing to do because the Chief Measurer acted improperly and Telefonica definitely benefited at the expense of the rest of the boats.

[Indio]

Win with dishonour or lose with dignity: which would you subscribe to?

Win with honour, as Tele is doing.. Please stop crying, it is becoming boring...

Cheating is honourable, Mario?  Mario_.jpg   32.96K   3 downloads

[Call me Tiger]

Win with dishonour or lose with dignity: which would you subscribe to?

Win with honour, as Tele is doing.. Please stop crying, it is becoming boring...

Cheating is honourable, Mario?  Mario_.jpg   32.96K   3 downloads

Now that Clifford will show that he's got legs -even if only under the protest room table- can you get over it? Please.

[Indio]

Cheating is honourable, Mario?  Mario_.jpg   32.96K   3 downloads

Now that Clifford will show that he's got legs -even if only under the protest room table- can you get over it? Please.

Is it a cultural thing with some of you, this selective morality on what constitutes cheating? I sure would hate to play golf with some of you....

[Call me Tiger]

Cheating is honourable, Mario?  Mario_.jpg   32.96K   3 downloads

Now that Clifford will show that he's got legs -even if only under the protest room table- can you get over it? Please.

Is it a cultural thing with some of you, this selective morality on what constitutes cheating? I sure would hate to play golf with some of you....

So you quit sailing for golf? Bad news for you, good news for the rest of us.
My condolences, anyway.

No relief with these Telefonica-blueish thingies?

[Indio]

Cheating is honourable, Mario?  Mario_.jpg   32.96K   3 downloads

Now that Clifford will show that he's got legs -even if only under the protest room table- can you get over it? Please.

Is it a cultural thing with some of you, this selective morality on what constitutes cheating? I sure would hate to play golf with some of you....

So you quit sailing for golf? Bad news for you, good news for the rest of us.
My condolences, anyway.

No relief with these Telefonica-blueish thingies?

Still do both. Your concept of "relief" is probably different from mine, especially if it involves "Telefonica-blueish" pills er thingies..

[kiwi_jon]

Just to remind people. How many times did Camper face the jury over it's forestay? While the jury ruled the forestay legal after the first hearing Telefonica and co kept lodging protests to get the forestay ruled illegal, even lodging protests after the first leg finished in Cape Town.

[thetruth]

And just to remind you. What was the final result? And the appeal? Just go sailing, the sport does not need anymore legal opinion or interpretation.

Just to remind people. How many times did Camper face the jury over it's forestay? While the jury ruled the forestay legal after the first hearing Telefonica and co kept lodging protests to get the forestay ruled illegal, even lodging protests after the first leg finished in Cape Town.

[DtM]

Using the correct analysis would help this discussion.

Seeking redress is very different from appealing and is based on the premise that the IJ is correct. That is not to say that others did not get it wrong in not communicating information. Had Camper (or anyone else) known what Tele knew then they woudl have done the same thing and that is what they want redress for.