Jump to content


VOR Leg 6


  • Please log in to reply
754 replies to this topic

#1 Swanno (Ohf Shore)

Swanno (Ohf Shore)

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,745 posts
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia

Posted 18 April 2012 - 05:02 AM

Hopefully all the starters can finish without pit stops or ships.

#2 Tunnel Rat

Tunnel Rat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,262 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 08:46 AM

Sanya can't!

#3 DtM

DtM

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,249 posts
  • Location:Out of the Office

Posted 18 April 2012 - 11:00 PM

But they won't be a starter (for this leg)!!!!

#4 the paradox of thrift

the paradox of thrift

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,375 posts
  • Location:Mos-Vegas
  • Interests:I like sailing

Posted 19 April 2012 - 12:16 AM

Who thinks the scoreboard might look like this by tomorrow?

Team Telefónica 127
Groupama sailing team 127
CAMPER with Emirates Team NZ 124
PUMA Ocean Racing by BERG 118
Abu Dhabi Ocean Racing 60
Team Sanya 30

#5 Alysum

Alysum

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 280 posts
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 19 April 2012 - 12:32 AM

It will be just wrong if Telefonica are docked 20 points - they throughly deserve to be the leaders, even if they made a sail measurement mistake, do you really think that made the difference between winning and losing? They'll just get a hefty fine I reckon.

#6 Swanno (Ohf Shore)

Swanno (Ohf Shore)

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,745 posts
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia

Posted 19 April 2012 - 12:41 AM

If they just get a fine then what is stopping any other big budget boat taking an extra kite or jib for the next leg?

I personally think thy will be docked time.

#7 Left Hook

Left Hook

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,014 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 12:45 AM

Nothing on the noticeboard yet. Local time in Itajai is 9:45 PM

#8 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Cannot be left blank

Posted 19 April 2012 - 01:02 AM

No answer from the jury till tomorrow:
http://www.volvoocea...st-hearing.html

From Doug on the other thread:
http://noticeboard.v...5.2.1-5.2.2.pdf

That seems to be VOR's interpretation on sail inventory but I'd imagine that Tele have a different one.
It'd be interesting to know whether the jury haven't yet agreed on the ruling or if it's just the penalty that needs to be decided.

#9 PonderousPelican

PonderousPelican

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 01:37 AM

If allegations are true they should be disqualified for the leg on which the infraction occurred.

#10 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Cannot be left blank

Posted 19 April 2012 - 03:14 AM

If allegations are true they should be disqualified for the leg on which the infraction occurred.


I agree in principle but what if they interpreted the rules differently and have been completely honest about breaking the rule across the first 4 legs?
The commercial aspect puts real pressure on a few people here.

#11 Moonduster

Moonduster

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,262 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 06:43 AM

Alysum,

The advantages of an additional sail or one that's not part of the assortment allowed should not be under estimated. It could easily lead to several hours advantage over a 20 day leg. Telefonica may be sailing an outstanding regatta, but no boat deserves to gain an advantage by breaking the rules.

There's a few things to consider here.

First, some have said that they sailed with an unmeasured sail. If that's the case, then it's really quite reasonable to DSQ them. I can't imagine this is possible.

Second is the question of whether they had too many sails on board. Again, I can't imagine this is possible, yet if it is, it's again reasonable to DSQ them.

Finally if they had a legal number of measured sails, there's the question of whether the combination of sails is not allowed by the Rules, which by my reading are a little tricky to interpret. If the Telefonica representation is that they had an alternate interpretation that they might reasonably have believed was legal, then it makes sense to apply a time penalty. And that time penalty should be about 6 hours, which is enough to move them from 3rd to last, cost them 15 points and give Camper, Abu Dhabi and Sanya 5 additional points each and make the standings look like:

Telefonic 132
Groupama 127
Camper 124
Puma 113
Abu Dhabi 60
Sanya 30

I expect that the protest will either be tossed (unlikely based on the recent postings from the Committee) or that the penalty will be based on the right number of measured sails but an illegal combination and that by tomorrow evening the leader board will look as above.

#12 Moonduster

Moonduster

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,262 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 06:46 AM

Regarding Onimod's question about "the first 4 legs" ...

The only protest is with respect to Leg 4. Legs 1, 2 and 3 have been sailed and no protests were lodged within the time limit for those legs. While it's possible that any infraction that resulted in the protest for leg 4 may have also been committed in an earlier leg, it's too late for any action to be taken. This entire thing is only about Leg 4.

#13 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Cannot be left blank

Posted 19 April 2012 - 06:58 AM

If we were to presume that Tele have misinterpreted the rules and made an 'honest' mistake then they would continue to honest and offer up their sail log to show when the illegal sail was used.
A time calculation based upon this might explain why the Jury requires the extra time.

#14 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Cannot be left blank

Posted 19 April 2012 - 07:01 AM

Regarding Onimod's question about "the first 4 legs" ...

The only protest is with respect to Leg 4. Legs 1, 2 and 3 have been sailed and no protests were lodged within the time limit for those legs. While it's possible that any infraction that resulted in the protest for leg 4 may have also been committed in an earlier leg, it's too late for any action to be taken. This entire thing is only about Leg 4.


Cheers.
I don't know where the rumoured 30 points penalty comes from - it's just not possible.

#15 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,382 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 08:35 AM

Go back in history. The Jury never comes down hard. A bit like the Ainslie debacle. Everyone agrees he broke the rules. Telefonica getting a 20 point hit,,,,,,,,yeah right. Just maybe why the public do not give a flying fuck about our sport

#16 Le Shark

Le Shark

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 199 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 April 2012 - 09:45 AM

Go back in history. The Jury never comes down hard. A bit like the Ainslie debacle. Everyone agrees he broke the rules. Telefonica getting a 20 point hit,,,,,,,,yeah right. Just maybe why the public do not give a flying fuck about our sport


Not too sure I get the analogy there - Ainslie lost a major event win as a result of his actions. Are you saying that Telefonica being hit hard enough that they are no longer able to win the volvo would not be a harsh enough penalty?

#17 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,382 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 10:12 AM

So being blatantly in disregard/ill repute of the sport (Rule 69) was in the spirit of the rule? Let you or I try it and see what the upshot would be. Perth was not a major event it was a very poorly run side show. Lets have the conversation about Telefonica tomorrow. My call is not a major hit. Like Ben too controversial and the sport is fucked as it is.




Go back in history. The Jury never comes down hard. A bit like the Ainslie debacle. Everyone agrees he broke the rules. Telefonica getting a 20 point hit,,,,,,,,yeah right. Just maybe why the public do not give a flying fuck about our sport


Not too sure I get the analogy there - Ainslie lost a major event win as a result of his actions. Are you saying that Telefonica being hit hard enough that they are no longer able to win the volvo would not be a harsh enough penalty?



#18 harzak

harzak

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 566 posts
  • Location:Norway

Posted 19 April 2012 - 11:01 AM

Finally if they had a legal number of measured sails, there's the question of whether the combination of sails is not allowed by the Rules, which by my reading are a little tricky to interpret. If the Telefonica representation is that they had an alternate interpretation that they might reasonably have believed was legal, then it makes sense to apply a time penalty. And that time penalty should be about 6 hours, which is enough to move them from 3rd to last, cost them 15 points and give Camper, Abu Dhabi and Sanya 5 additional points each and make the standings look like:

Telefonic 132
Groupama 127
Camper 124
Puma 113
Abu Dhabi 60
Sanya 30

I expect that the protest will either be tossed (unlikely based on the recent postings from the Committee) or that the penalty will be based on the right number of measured sails but an illegal combination and that by tomorrow evening the leader board will look as above.


Copied my post from the leg 5 thread:

From the RRS (my emphasis):

64 DECISIONS
64.1 Penalties and Exoneration
(a) When the protest committee decides that a boat that is a party to a protest hearing has broken a rule, it shall disqualify her
unless some other penalty applies. A penalty shall be imposed whether or not the applicable rule was mentioned in the protest.


After a rather cursory check, I can't find "some other penalty" for breaking NOR 5.2.2. Thus it seems DSQ is the only option for punishment if Telefonika is found guilty. Please correct me if wrong.

If Telefonica is found guilty and DSQ'ed, the point tally will be:

Groupama: 127 points
Telefonica: 127 points
Camper: 124 points (+5)
Puma: 113 points

Abu Dhabi: 60 points (+5)
Sanya: 30 points (+5)

#19 blisster

blisster

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 01:48 PM

If you watched the Leg 3 documentary there was also an issue where Tele's AIS unit was not activated when required in the shipping channels. They claimed it was on and must have been a "bad unit with a range of about two boat lengths". So it was off the whole time they were in the shipping channel, giving them a huge advantage. I don't know if this was ever investigated, or their supposedly faulty unit was tested at the leg's conclusion but I didn't hear of anything. If they're found guilty on the subject of sails... DSQ the fuckers from the leg.

#20 smackdaddy

smackdaddy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,683 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 02:04 PM

Flick the Tele.

#21 4pines

4pines

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 02:37 PM


Finally if they had a legal number of measured sails, there's the question of whether the combination of sails is not allowed by the Rules, which by my reading are a little tricky to interpret. If the Telefonica representation is that they had an alternate interpretation that they might reasonably have believed was legal, then it makes sense to apply a time penalty. And that time penalty should be about 6 hours, which is enough to move them from 3rd to last, cost them 15 points and give Camper, Abu Dhabi and Sanya 5 additional points each and make the standings look like:

Telefonic 132
Groupama 127
Camper 124
Puma 113
Abu Dhabi 60
Sanya 30

I expect that the protest will either be tossed (unlikely based on the recent postings from the Committee) or that the penalty will be based on the right number of measured sails but an illegal combination and that by tomorrow evening the leader board will look as above.


Copied my post from the leg 5 thread:

From the RRS (my emphasis):

64 DECISIONS
64.1 Penalties and Exoneration
(a) When the protest committee decides that a boat that is a party to a protest hearing has broken a rule, it shall disqualify her
unless some other penalty applies. A penalty shall be imposed whether or not the applicable rule was mentioned in the protest.


After a rather cursory check, I can't find "some other penalty" for breaking NOR 5.2.2. Thus it seems DSQ is the only option for punishment if Telefonika is found guilty. Please correct me if wrong.

If Telefonica is found guilty and DSQ'ed, the point tally will be:

Groupama: 127 points
Telefonica: 127 points
Camper: 124 points (+5)
Puma: 113 points

Abu Dhabi: 60 points (+5)
Sanya: 30 points (+5)


I'm I missing something in the NOR, because if Tele is DSQ'ed I don't understand why Camper and others will gain 5 points. I cannot recall a time where I have seen a boat ahead of me get DSQ'ed and I gain points (or lose them in a low point scoring scenario). Shouldn't Tele just lose 20 points and all the other scores remain the same, if they are to be DSQ'ed?




#22 Vorwaerts

Vorwaerts

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 285 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 02:41 PM

I'm I missing something in the NOR, because if Tele is DSQ'ed I don't understand why Camper and others will gain 5 points. I cannot recall a time where I have seen a boat ahead of me get DSQ'ed and I gain points (or lose them in a low point scoring scenario). Shouldn't Tele just lose 20 points and all the other scores remain the same, if they are to be DSQ'ed?



Yes you do get more points with the low points system if somebody is DSQ'ed in front of you. If Tele is DSQ then Camper finished in third and not fourth, i.e. they would get the points for 3rd place which happen to be 5 more than what they got for 4th.

Edit: in a low points system you obviously get less points if somebody in front of you is DSQ'ed, since everybody behind the DSQ moves up a place (thus gets 1 point less).

#23 Greener

Greener

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 03:12 PM

Protest dismissed...more details to follow.

#24 the loose cannon

the loose cannon

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 635 posts
  • Location:Planet Earth

Posted 19 April 2012 - 03:55 PM

Details: Chief Measurer was consulted by Telefonica, gave them the all clear, therefore they can't toss them out...

so yes they did have the extra sail, and got away with it.

#25 nemme

nemme

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 04:09 PM

Sorry but from a non-sailor perspective that's bullshit.

#26 Dave S

Dave S

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 251 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 04:31 PM

Sorry but from a non-sailor perspective that's bullshit.

Why?

- Rules were ambiguous
- Tele sought and obtained clarification from Chief Measurer
- Tele declared their full inventory to Chief Measurer, who gave approval (twice, once before the start and once after the finish)

If the Chief Measurer has endorsed their sail inventory, they've done nothing wrong (legally or morally). The only thing they've transgressed is a clarification that was written after the event.

The only screw up here is by the race organisers. Even they deserve the benefit of the doubt; this sort of thing happens the whole time, the only thing you can do is stop the same loophole being exploited twice...

#27 smackdaddy

smackdaddy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,683 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 04:34 PM


Sorry but from a non-sailor perspective that's bullshit.

Why?

- Rules were ambiguous
- Tele sought and obtained clarification from Chief Measurer
- Tele declared their full inventory to Chief Measurer, who gave approval (twice, once before the start and once after the finish)

If the Chief Measurer has endorsed their sail inventory, they've done nothing wrong (legally or morally). The only thing they've transgressed is a clarification that was written after the event.

The only screw up here is by the race organisers. Even they deserve the benefit of the doubt; this sort of thing happens the whole time, the only thing you can do is stop the same loophole being exploited twice...


Tis true. In essence, Tele outsmarted everyone else on Leg 4. Maybe they do rock.

#28 nemme

nemme

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 05:56 PM


Sorry but from a non-sailor perspective that's bullshit.

Why?

- Rules were ambiguous
- Tele sought and obtained clarification from Chief Measurer
- Tele declared their full inventory to Chief Measurer, who gave approval (twice, once before the start and once after the finish)

If the Chief Measurer has endorsed their sail inventory, they've done nothing wrong (legally or morally). The only thing they've transgressed is a clarification that was written after the event.

The only screw up here is by the race organisers. Even they deserve the benefit of the doubt; this sort of thing happens the whole time, the only thing you can do is stop the same loophole being exploited twice...


Not disagreeing. Tele didn't do anything wrong but had an advantage for one if not four legs. Were they not in lead I wouldn't find it too fishy but they are. So, they didn't do anything wrong but it's likely an uneven playing field. Bullshit.

#29 Dave S

Dave S

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 251 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 06:11 PM

Not disagreeing. Tele didn't do anything wrong but had an advantage for one if not four legs. Were they not in lead I wouldn't find it too fishy but they are. So, they didn't do anything wrong but it's likely an uneven playing field. Bullshit.

The loophole was there for everyone to exploit, but Tele were the only team to spot it and take advantage, so the playing field was level. From a legal and moral perspective, I don't think it's any different to spotting more wind on the other side of the course, and being the only boat to tack over and get into it...

#30 Pierre S

Pierre S

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Location:60 Norff

Posted 19 April 2012 - 06:29 PM

In that case why did the RC/measurer have to go through the rigmarole of filing a protest, conducting a hearing, postponing the decision to today, etc.?

#31 smackdaddy

smackdaddy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,683 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 06:46 PM

In that case why did the RC/measurer have to go through the rigmarole of filing a protest, conducting a hearing, postponing the decision to today, etc.?


My guess is that they needed an outside, independent panel to figure out how to deal with the screw up since it affected the other teams...especially after closing the loophole with the amendment.

#32 crashdog

crashdog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 07:28 PM

so yes they did have the extra sail, and got away with it.


Can someone please explain this statement? Telefonica sailed with 10 sails, just like everyone else. If they took an extra storm jib, then they gave up another sail. We have heard from the other boats (Puma) that there are two cuts of the storm jib, one of which is advantageous as a heavy weather staysail, and that one of the strategic decisions is to choose one or the other. Tele made a strategic decision in a different direction. I wonder what sail they left on the dock. I noticed on the run into Aukland that their spinnaker was a lot flatter than Camper's. So did they leave the big runner on the dock?

But really can we please stop calling them cheaters or somehow exploiting the rule?

#33 erdb

erdb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 07:38 PM


so yes they did have the extra sail, and got away with it.


Can someone please explain this statement? Telefonica sailed with 10 sails, just like everyone else. If they took an extra storm jib, then they gave up another sail. We have heard from the other boats (Puma) that there are two cuts of the storm jib, one of which is advantageous as a heavy weather staysail, and that one of the strategic decisions is to choose one or the other. Tele made a strategic decision in a different direction. I wonder what sail they left on the dock. I noticed on the run into Aukland that their spinnaker was a lot flatter than Camper's. So did they leave the big runner on the dock?

But really can we please stop calling them cheaters or somehow exploiting the rule?


+1

It's clear they didn't have more sails. I wonder, too which sail they left on the dock and what might have been the reason.

#34 DtM

DtM

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,249 posts
  • Location:Out of the Office

Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:29 AM

Smack you make me laugh.

You change your mind so often !!! :rolleyes:

#35 Koukel

Koukel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 936 posts
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:32 AM


so yes they did have the extra sail, and got away with it.


Can someone please explain this statement? Telefonica sailed with 10 sails, just like everyone else. If they took an extra storm jib, then they gave up another sail. We have heard from the other boats (Puma) that there are two cuts of the storm jib, one of which is advantageous as a heavy weather staysail, and that one of the strategic decisions is to choose one or the other. Tele made a strategic decision in a different direction. I wonder what sail they left on the dock. I noticed on the run into Aukland that their spinnaker was a lot flatter than Camper's. So did they leave the big runner on the dock?

But really can we please stop calling them cheaters or somehow exploiting the rule?

Yes. Some people actually care if they have integrity or not. Why assume anyone is purposely breaking the rules? From what I've seen, Tele is leading this race because they've sailed better and broken less than anyone else, not because they juiced the rules. Sheesh.

Go Puma!

Koukel

#36 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,382 posts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 06:37 AM

Now that was a surprise........not



Flick the Tele.



#37 Cyrille Hydrogene

Cyrille Hydrogene

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 20 April 2012 - 09:45 AM

Interesting Franck Cammas interview in Le Figaro this morning.

http://www.lefigaro....re-tres-bon.php

One especially interesting bit about keeping the speed down inthe Deep south to avoid breaking the boat:

Il y a des moments où il faut utiliser le maximum de potentiel du bateau, d'autres où c'est inutile car la différence ne se fera pas là. En multicoque, c'est encore plus vrai. Lever le pied est assez rare dans la façon de naviguer des Anglo-Saxons. Particulièrement sur la Volvo, car, sur ces bateaux-là, on ne risque pas de chavirer. Cette gestion-là est très compliquée, pas forcément rationnelle. Et, pour Thomas Coville et moi, le multicoque nous a aidés. Quand nous étions sous-toilés dans le Grand Sud, et que Camper en profite pour nous doubler, les équipiers anglo-saxons du bord étaient fous! C'est là qu'il faut être fort dans sa tête pour rester dans notre choix. Une dizaine d'heures après, Camper a cassé et, à bord, on n'en a plus entendu parler.




Translation (google + my lousy effort):


There are times when you must use the maximum potential of the boat, others where it is useless because the difference won't be made there. It's even more true with multihulls. To slow down isn't in the sailing habits for the Anglo-Saxons. Particularly on the Volvo because, on these boats, there is no danger of capsizing. This management is very complicated, and not necessarily rational. And for ThomasCoville and I, ou multihull experience helped. When we were under-powered down in the Deep South, and Camper took the opportunity to overtake us, the English-speaking crew on board went crazy! This is the moment where you need to be strong to keep to your choices. Ten hours later, Camper had a failure, and we no longer heard a word about it.



There is no mention of the ruling for Tele's storm sail, but Cammas acknowledges that it's going to be very hard to beat the spaniards for the overall win with a 20 points deficit, but anything is still possible if they manage to finish ahead of them in all the coming legs.

#38 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 20 April 2012 - 10:01 AM


Sorry but from a non-sailor perspective that's bullshit.

Why?

- Rules were ambiguous
- Tele sought and obtained clarification from Chief Measurer
- Tele declared their full inventory to Chief Measurer, who gave approval (twice, once before the start and once after the finish)

If the Chief Measurer has endorsed their sail inventory, they've done nothing wrong (legally or morally). The only thing they've transgressed is a clarification that was written after the event.

The only screw up here is by the race organisers. Even they deserve the benefit of the doubt; this sort of thing happens the whole time, the only thing you can do is stop the same loophole being exploited twice...


That's mischievously misleading. The rule Telefonica breached was/is quite clear: nothing "ambiguous" about NOR5.2.2b, nor was there any "loophole". The Chief Measurer did NOT "endorse" Tele's sail inventory in Sanya: if anything, he can probably be fairly accused of being ignorant of the relevant rule, but ignorance is not "endorsing" a breach.

#39 Dave S

Dave S

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 251 posts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 10:34 AM

That's mischievously misleading. The rule Telefonica breached was/is quite clear: nothing "ambiguous" about NOR5.2.2b, nor was there any "loophole". The Chief Measurer did NOT "endorse" Tele's sail inventory in Sanya: if anything, he can probably be fairly accused of being ignorant of the relevant rule, but ignorance is not "endorsing" a breach.

It would appear that the IJ don't agree with you...

#40 PonderousPelican

PonderousPelican

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 03:18 PM

Have they had live video of previous pro-am races? This one is all virtual eye. A bit of a parade: Gpma, Campy, Tele, Puma.

#41 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,022 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 20 April 2012 - 04:03 PM


Sorry but from a non-sailor perspective that's bullshit.

Why?

- Rules were ambiguous
- Tele sought and obtained clarification from Chief Measurer
- Tele declared their full inventory to Chief Measurer, who gave approval (twice, once before the start and once after the finish)

If the Chief Measurer has endorsed their sail inventory, they've done nothing wrong (legally or morally). The only thing they've transgressed is a clarification that was written after the event.

The only screw up here is by the race organisers. Even they deserve the benefit of the doubt; this sort of thing happens the whole time, the only thing you can do is stop the same loophole being exploited twice...


Actually, it isn't "the only thing you can do", but you certainly make Camper's case for them (and I'm not a big Camper fan).

62 REDRESS
62.1 A request for redress shall be based on a claim that a boat's finishing place in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse by
( a ) an improper action or omission of the race committee or protest committee,


In this case, Telefonica was given an interpretation of the sail inventory rules that was not available to the other competitors and gave them a material advantage. It didn't even matter that the interpretation was later deemed false. It also doesn't matter what choice of sail they left behind. They were given information not available to the other competitors. They didn't do anything wrong, it wasn't their job to tell the other boats, that was the OA's job. I'm surprised the other boats didn't request redress, because it couldn't be more clear that it is warranted and they should at least register their objections. But they don't have to request it to be awarded redress.

64.2 Decisions on Redress
When the protest committee decides that a boat is entitled to redress under rule 62, it shall make as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected, whether or not they asked for redress. This may be to adjust the scoring (see rule A4 for some examples) or finishing times of boats, to abandon the race, to let the results stand or to make some other arrangement. When in doubt about the facts or probable results of any arrangement for the race or series, especially before abandoning the race, the protest committee shall take evidence from appropriate sources.


They can adjust points, and have a wide latitude to do so, i.e., they can both add and subtract. Not that I think they will grant redress, it smells like the fix is in.

#42 smackdaddy

smackdaddy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,683 posts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 04:17 PM

Smack you make me laugh.

You change your mind so often !!! :rolleyes:


Heh-heh.

Facts are facts. Based on one story we get from the VOR or elsewhere, an outcome will seem clear (and I happily jump on it). Then other facts come out, and that all changes (and I happily jump on that).

I don't change my mind, I just jump on anything that moves. I'm a dude. What do you expect?

My "Flick the Tele" comment stands though, at least based on the initial set of facts (e.g. - the clarification of the rule). Had they broken the rule, they deserved to be flicked. But then out comes the haziness of the rule and the wayward CM - and Tele comes out smelling like a rose.

Flick the CM!

#43 Koukel

Koukel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 936 posts
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 20 April 2012 - 07:34 PM

They can adjust points, and have a wide latitude to do so, i.e., they can both add and subtract. Not that I think they will grant redress, it smells like the fix is in.

Slippery slope, adjusting points.

Race managment are all trying to make a living in sailing too, just like designers and sailers. Just a guess, but unless something extraordinary happens it would be pretty risky to start offering redress. I can't think of a major US sport ever where a the outcome of a game was changed after the fact due to someone getting screwed over by a ref, and our refs suck it up in the biggest events. Outside of sailing, or even outside of the AC, has a major result been turned over? World Cup? Boxing? I think the NCAA has pulled wins from a team before, but so long after the fact that its only been a statistical change. Drug test failure in the Olympics? That's not a bad call or a dodgy rules issue though.

Koukel

#44 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 20 April 2012 - 11:29 PM


They can adjust points, and have a wide latitude to do so, i.e., they can both add and subtract. Not that I think they will grant redress, it smells like the fix is in.

Slippery slope, adjusting points.

Race managment are all trying to make a living in sailing too, just like designers and sailers. Just a guess, but unless something extraordinary happens it would be pretty risky to start offering redress. I can't think of a major US sport ever where a the outcome of a game was changed after the fact due to someone getting screwed over by a ref, and our refs suck it up in the biggest events. Outside of sailing, or even outside of the AC, has a major result been turned over? World Cup? Boxing? I think the NCAA has pulled wins from a team before, but so long after the fact that its only been a statistical change. Drug test failure in the Olympics? That's not a bad call or a dodgy rules issue though.

Koukel


Except the VOR is not some mickey-mouse 'merikan sport interrupting TV commercials Posted Image

#45 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Cannot be left blank

Posted 21 April 2012 - 01:29 AM

Apparently some people are struggling to see the ambiguity which to me seems quite clear.

Firstly the applicable NOR clauses:

5.2 WHILE RACING
5.2.1
(a ) A Boat shall have on board 1 storm trysail, 1 storm jib and1 heavy weather jib (HWJ).
(b ) In an In-Port Race. Boats shall also have on board an In Port race spinnaker as described in NOR APPENDIX E.
(c ) The storm trysail shall only be used in case of safety or emergency and sheeted without a mainsail.
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)
(c ) 3 Spinnakers including 1 fractional spinnaker, which complies with Volvo Open 70 Rule v.3. Section 11.3.9. None of these 3 additional spinnakers can be an In Port race spinnaker as described in NOR APPENDIX E
(d ) 1 Staysail (SS). Only permitted on a leg.

And now the problem:

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:

Another plain english way of saying the same thing:

As well as the required sails, you can also carry additional sails according to the following list...

Now I'd bet my life that's not how the rule was intended to be interpreted but given the way it was written it certainly can be.
The problem is the word addition and it's location in the sentence.
Instead of chopping together legalese from previously written rules elsewhere it could better have been written thus:

"The maximum number of sails allowed to be on board, including those listed in 5.2.1, shall be be no more than..."

Everyone was free to interpret the rule as Telefonica did.

#46 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 21 April 2012 - 02:59 AM

Apparently some people are struggling to see the ambiguity which to me seems quite clear.

Firstly the applicable NOR clauses:

5.2 WHILE RACING
5.2.1
(a ) A Boat shall have on board 1 storm trysail, 1 storm jib and1 heavy weather jib (HWJ).
(b ) In an In-Port Race. Boats shall also have on board an In Port race spinnaker as described in NOR APPENDIX E.
(c ) The storm trysail shall only be used in case of safety or emergency and sheeted without a mainsail.
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)
(c ) 3 Spinnakers including 1 fractional spinnaker, which complies with Volvo Open 70 Rule v.3. Section 11.3.9. None of these 3 additional spinnakers can be an In Port race spinnaker as described in NOR APPENDIX E
(d ) 1 Staysail (SS). Only permitted on a leg.

And now the problem:

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:

Another plain english way of saying the same thing:

As well as the required sails, you can also carry additional sails according to the following list...

Now I'd bet my life that's not how the rule was intended to be interpreted but given the way it was written it certainly can be.
The problem is the word addition and it's location in the sentence.
Instead of chopping together legalese from previously written rules elsewhere it could better have been written thus:

"The maximum number of sails allowed to be on board, including those listed in 5.2.1, shall be be no more than..."

Everyone was free to interpret the rule as Telefonica did.

I think some of you guys are trying too hard to find the "ambiguity" cited by the decision: it does not exist!!

"5.2.1.a A Boat shall have on board 1 storm trysail, 1 storm jib and1 heavy weather jib (HWJ)."
That's 3 sails which are compulsory to have onboard. Then 5.2.2 qualifies the spread of the other 7 sails required, to make up the permissible total of 10 sails:

"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)
c: 3 Spinnakers including 1 fractional spinnaker, which complies with Volvo Open 70 Rule v.3. Section 11.3.9. None of these 3 additional spinnakers can be an In Port race spinnaker as described in NOR APPENDIX E
d: 1 Staysail (SS). Only permitted on a leg."

5.2.2 simply states that in addition to the compulsory 3 specialist sails in 5.2.1a, they MAY carry an additional 7 sails as specified. Telefonica could have chosen to carry 1 mainsail, 2 headsails, only 2 spinnakers, and 2 storm jibs, and they would have been in breach of NOR5.2.2b. They could have opted to carry only 8 sails including 2 headsails and 2 storm jibs and they would still be in breach. 5.2.2b can't be any clearer: if you want an extra storm jib or an extra HWJ, they count in your allocated headsail quota of 2.

The operative numbers you people should be looking at are 10 (maximum number of sails allowed), and 2 (headsails). The protest involved the 2 headsails and 2 storm jibs carried by Telefonica in clear violation of 5.2.2b: there is no ambiguity whatsoever. What we're being asked to swallow is an insulting insinuation that perhaps it is "ambiguous" to someone with English as a second language: it still does not annul the breach.

#47 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Cannot be left blank

Posted 21 April 2012 - 03:55 AM

Indio
Read my post again - you're not getting it.
You're reading what you want it to say, not what it actually says.

#48 Swanno (Ohf Shore)

Swanno (Ohf Shore)

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,745 posts
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia

Posted 21 April 2012 - 04:31 AM

Just watching the VOR 2001 tapes and i am so glad the boats are faster, the coverage is better and the race is how it is.

Leg 2 from Cape Town to Sydney is covered in about 3 minutes which shows the start and the finish...how boring to watch!

#49 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Cannot be left blank

Posted 21 April 2012 - 04:58 AM

Just watching the VOR 2001 tapes and i am so glad the boats are faster, the coverage is better and the race is how it is.

Leg 2 from Cape Town to Sydney is covered in about 3 minutes which shows the start and the finish...how boring to watch!


Agreed; I can't wait for suggested live 24/7 feeds from each boat in the next race.
In the short term I hope there is more breeze and a bigger course for the itajai in-port race.
The pro am was really pathetic

#50 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 21 April 2012 - 05:02 AM

Indio
Read my post again - you're not getting it.
You're reading what you want it to say, not what it actually says.


On the contrary, I do get it: it's you guys trying to look for a non-existent "ambiguity" to justify the decision, who do not "get it". You're claiming the "In addition to..." is the source of the "ambiguity", a claim patently nonsensical. The placement of "In addition..." is correct, as it qualifies the additional optional sails that MAY be carried, and their composition. It effectively stipulates that IN ADDITION to the 3 compulsory specialty sails, a team MAY take another 7 sails which shall be limited to the sails specified in 5.2.2: and if a team decides to take an extra storm jib or HWJ, then they can only take 1 headsail because the extra sj or HWJ counts as a headsail. Why is it so difficult to comprehend this?!

Interestingly, I notice on the noticeboard at the vulvaoceanrace site that they have published an AMENDED version of the decision. The amendment seems to be an attempt to retrospectively legitimise the initial "interpretation" attributed to the Chief Measurer, and involves changing the words in clause 2.4 from "..with the Chief Measurer's previous interpretation..." to "...with the interpretation previously applied by the Chief Measurer." This is clearly a reaction to the fact that the Chief Measurer is not empowered to issue interpretations of NORs or SIs.

Sounds like they're the ones getting confused!!

#51 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Cannot be left blank

Posted 21 April 2012 - 05:41 AM

Why is it so difficult to comprehend this?!


There is nothing wrong with you're interpretation.
Unfortunately the way the rule was written, there was another one too.
Plenty of people here can see it, Telefonica saw it (probably first) so did the Chief Measurer, the RC and the IJ.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=0WhuikFY1Pg

It's pretty clear you can't or don't want to see the lateral alternative so I won't bother you (and everyone else who is probably bored to death by now) about it any more.
Back to the racing.

#52 crashdog

crashdog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 21 April 2012 - 05:48 AM

[snip snip] and [snip]


Do you know for a fact that telefonica sailed with five headsails (ISAF definition) e.g. 2 storm jibs, 1 heavy weather jib, and two other sails (such as a light air jib and an all purpose jib)? Can you provide the documentary evidence, such as the chief measurer's report at departure from Sanya or the chief measurer's report from Aukland? It would be most helpful to this discussion if you could, thereby supporting your claim that Telefonica pressed the rules in an un-sportsman-like manner.

The one party that I am certain of who has had access to such information is the International Jury. In their review of the information, they have determined that in fact, Telefonica did not breach the rules. Their response is that the protest was dismissed, that is, it had no merit what so ever.

We could argue all day long about the extent of the ambiguity of a "may" term, and goodness knows, in the practice of Law, that word is very complicated. But adjudication, particularly in as simple a world as sport, should be based on facts, that is, on information clearly established as facts. Do you have any information established as fact that telefonica sailed with... oh whatever...

Yeah I can't top cookie. Particularly since he so obviously is, like, Spanish...

#53 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 21 April 2012 - 06:00 AM


[snip snip] and [snip]


Do you know for a fact that telefonica sailed with five headsails (ISAF definition) e.g. 2 storm jibs, 1 heavy weather jib, and two other sails (such as a light air jib and an all purpose jib)? Can you provide the documentary evidence, such as the chief measurer's report at departure from Sanya or the chief measurer's report from Aukland? It would be most helpful to this discussion if you could, thereby supporting your claim that Telefonica pressed the rules in an un-sportsman-like manner.

The one party that I am certain of who has had access to such information is the International Jury. In their review of the information, they have determined that in fact, Telefonica did not breach the rules. Their response is that the protest was dismissed, that is, it had no merit what so ever.

We could argue all day long about the extent of the ambiguity of a "may" term, and goodness knows, in the practice of Law, that word is very complicated. But adjudication, particularly in as simple a world as sport, should be based on facts, that is, on information clearly established as facts. Do you have any information established as fact that telefonica sailed with... oh whatever...

Yeah I can't top cookie. Particularly since he so obviously is, like, Spanish...


Knock yourself out...from the Decision:

"1 Facts Found
1.1 Telefonica sailed leg 4 with 10 sails, including 2 headsails and 2 storm jibs. Leg 4 started on 19th February and Telefonica finished on 11th March."

#54 crashdog

crashdog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 21 April 2012 - 06:05 AM



[snip snip] and [snip]


Do you know for a fact that telefonica sailed with five headsails (ISAF definition) e.g. 2 storm jibs, 1 heavy weather jib, and two other sails (such as a light air jib and an all purpose jib)? Can you provide the documentary evidence, such as the chief measurer's report at departure from Sanya or the chief measurer's report from Aukland? It would be most helpful to this discussion if you could, thereby supporting your claim that Telefonica pressed the rules in an un-sportsman-like manner.

The one party that I am certain of who has had access to such information is the International Jury. In their review of the information, they have determined that in fact, Telefonica did not breach the rules. Their response is that the protest was dismissed, that is, it had no merit what so ever.

We could argue all day long about the extent of the ambiguity of a "may" term, and goodness knows, in the practice of Law, that word is very complicated. But adjudication, particularly in as simple a world as sport, should be based on facts, that is, on information clearly established as facts. Do you have any information established as fact that telefonica sailed with... oh whatever...

Yeah I can't top cookie. Particularly since he so obviously is, like, Spanish...


Knock yourself out...from the Decision:

"1 Facts Found
1.1 Telefonica sailed leg 4 with 10 sails, including 2 headsails and 2 storm jibs. Leg 4 started on 19th February and Telefonica finished on 11th March."


'xactly - by the International Jury`s count Telefonica complied with the rules. Can we stop now? Or do you have other information such as the chief measurers report...

#55 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 21 April 2012 - 06:19 AM


Why is it so difficult to comprehend this?!


There is nothing wrong with you're interpretation.
Unfortunately the way the rule was written, there was another one too.
Plenty of people here can see it, Telefonica saw it (probably first) so did the Chief Measurer, the RC and the IJ.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=0WhuikFY1Pg

It's pretty clear you can't or don't want to see the lateral alternative so I won't bother you (and everyone else who is probably bored to death by now) about it any more.
Back to the racing.


I'm honestly struggling to see what other possible interpretation could be derived from NOR 5.2 inclusive, as written. That Telefonica was given an interpretation prior to leaving Sanya is a given: for the IJ to now claim that the "application" of that interpretation conflicted with the RC interpretation of March 18th as the indication that 5.2 was "ambiguous" is unsustainable.

Telefonica was advised that the NOR "placed a minimums, not maximum, on the number of storm jibs which could be carried" - which is correct. 5.2.2b then qualifies this interpretation as to the status of any additional storm jib (or HWJ) to be carried. End of debate. "Ambiguity" is a cop-out by the IJ, whose credibility deserves the ridicule it has attracted.

#56 crashdog

crashdog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 21 April 2012 - 06:56 AM

Have you looked at Sail Measurement ss 11 of the Volvo Open 70 Rule V3 (I am sure you have).

The ISAF definition of headsail, etc. is set aside and the measurement of sails is a matter of declaration, particularly as it relates to sails other than mainsails and trysails. Measurement of sail area is then applied as to a declared sail, whether spinnaker, staysail or headsail. A storm jib (ISAF rules) could be declared a staysail and be within maximum limits. It could also be declared as a spinnaker if it did not use battens.

A reasonable analysis takes all this into consideration. For example, leaving a light air staysail on the dock and taking a second storm jib, declared as a staysail, is most certainly a possibility. Given the replacement criteria under the Notice of Race, using up storm jibs makes a lot of sense.

#57 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 21 April 2012 - 07:31 AM

Have you looked at Sail Measurement ss 11 of the Volvo Open 70 Rule V3 (I am sure you have).

The ISAF definition of headsail, etc. is set aside and the measurement of sails is a matter of declaration, particularly as it relates to sails other than mainsails and trysails. Measurement of sail area is then applied as to a declared sail, whether spinnaker, staysail or headsail. A storm jib (ISAF rules) could be declared a staysail and be within maximum limits. It could also be declared as a spinnaker if it did not use battens.

A reasonable analysis takes all this into consideration. For example, leaving a light air staysail on the dock and taking a second storm jib, declared as a staysail, is most certainly a possibility. Given the replacement criteria under the Notice of Race, using up storm jibs makes a lot of sense.


Valid comments, except an extra storm jib could only ever take the place of one of 2 headsails, not as a substitute for a spinnaker or staysail. It's not disputed that Telefonica arrived in Auckland with 2 headsails and 2 storm jibs included in their inventory, and this is gist of the protest. Even IF they dropped a spinnaker and they measured in the 2nd storm jib as a spinnaker and this was not picked up by the Chief Measurer in Sanya, the CM's error does not in itself absolve Tele from the breach of 5.2.2b.

Man, I'm out of this circular debate....I'll just watch the Volvo China Open championship Posted Image

#58 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,382 posts

Posted 21 April 2012 - 07:41 AM

Maybe you should get one of these jobs Indie. All highly paid and you get to fuck up on a race by race basis. Was Grael not accused of cheating last time?



[quote name='Indio' timestamp='1334993467' post='3682062']
[quote name='crashdog' timestamp='1334991370' post='3682056']
Have you looked at Sail Measurement ss 11 of the Volvo Open 70 Rule V3 (I am sure you have).

The ISAF definition of headsail, etc. is set aside and the measurement of sails is a matter of declaration, particularly as it relates to sails other than mainsails and trysails. Measurement of sail area is then applied as to a declared sail, whether spinnaker, staysail or headsail. A storm jib (ISAF rules) could be declared a staysail and be within maximum limits. It could also be declared as a spinnaker if it did not use battens.

A reasonable analysis takes all this into consideration. For example, leaving a light air staysail on the dock and taking a second storm jib, declared as a staysail, is most certainly a possibility. Given the replacement criteria under the Notice of Race, using up storm jibs makes a lot of sense.
[/quote]

Valid comments, except an extra storm jib could only ever take the place of one of 2 headsails, not as a substitute for a spinnaker or staysail. It's not disputed that Telefonica arrived in Auckland with 2 headsails and 2 storm jibs included in their inventory, and this is gist of the protest. Even IF they dropped a spinnaker and they measured in the 2nd storm jib as a spinnaker and this was not picked up by the Chief Measurer in Sanya, the CM's error does not in itself absolve Tele from the breach of 5.2.2b.

Man, I'm out of this circular debate....I'll just watch the Volvo China Open championship Posted Image
[/quote]

Maybe you should get one of these jobs Indie. All highly paid and you get to fuck up on a race by race basis. Was Grael not accused of cheating last time?



[quote name='Indio' timestamp='1334993467' post='3682062']
[quote name='crashdog' timestamp='1334991370' post='3682056']
Have you looked at Sail Measurement ss 11 of the Volvo Open 70 Rule V3 (I am sure you have).

The ISAF definition of headsail, etc. is set aside and the measurement of sails is a matter of declaration, particularly as it relates to sails other than mainsails and trysails. Measurement of sail area is then applied as to a declared sail, whether spinnaker, staysail or headsail. A storm jib (ISAF rules) could be declared a staysail and be within maximum limits. It could also be declared as a spinnaker if it did not use battens.

A reasonable analysis takes all this into consideration. For example, leaving a light air staysail on the dock and taking a second storm jib, declared as a staysail, is most certainly a possibility. Given the replacement criteria under the Notice of Race, using up storm jibs makes a lot of sense.
[/quote]

Valid comments, except an extra storm jib could only ever take the place of one of 2 headsails, not as a substitute for a spinnaker or staysail. It's not disputed that Telefonica arrived in Auckland with 2 headsails and 2 storm jibs included in their inventory, and this is gist of the protest. Even IF they dropped a spinnaker and they measured in the 2nd storm jib as a spinnaker and this was not picked up by the Chief Measurer in Sanya, the CM's error does not in itself absolve Tele from the breach of 5.2.2b.

Man, I'm out of this circular debate....I'll just watch the Volvo China Open championship Posted Image
[/quote]

Maybe you should get one of these jobs Indie. All highly paid and you get to fuck up on a race by race basis. Was Grael not accused of cheating last time?



[quote name='Indio' timestamp='1334993467' post='3682062']
[quote name='crashdog' timestamp='1334991370' post='3682056']
Have you looked at Sail Measurement ss 11 of the Volvo Open 70 Rule V3 (I am sure you have).

The ISAF definition of headsail, etc. is set aside and the measurement of sails is a matter of declaration, particularly as it relates to sails other than mainsails and trysails. Measurement of sail area is then applied as to a declared sail, whether spinnaker, staysail or headsail. A storm jib (ISAF rules) could be declared a staysail and be within maximum limits. It could also be declared as a spinnaker if it did not use battens.

A reasonable analysis takes all this into consideration. For example, leaving a light air staysail on the dock and taking a second storm jib, declared as a staysail, is most certainly a possibility. Given the replacement criteria under the Notice of Race, using up storm jibs makes a lot of sense.
[/quote]

Valid comments, except an extra storm jib could only ever take the place of one of 2 headsails, not as a substitute for a spinnaker or staysail. It's not disputed that Telefonica arrived in Auckland with 2 headsails and 2 storm jibs included in their inventory, and this is gist of the protest. Even IF they dropped a spinnaker and they measured in the 2nd storm jib as a spinnaker and this was not picked up by the Chief Measurer in Sanya, the CM's error does not in itself absolve Tele from the breach of 5.2.2b.

Man, I'm out of this circular debate....I'll just watch the Volvo China Open championship Posted Image
[/quote]

#59 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,382 posts

Posted 21 April 2012 - 07:50 AM

Seriously look at what you are arguing about. And do you really wonder why this is not a TV sport??

#60 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Cannot be left blank

Posted 21 April 2012 - 07:59 AM



Why is it so difficult to comprehend this?!


There is nothing wrong with you're interpretation.
Unfortunately the way the rule was written, there was another one too.
Plenty of people here can see it, Telefonica saw it (probably first) so did the Chief Measurer, the RC and the IJ.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=0WhuikFY1Pg

It's pretty clear you can't or don't want to see the lateral alternative so I won't bother you (and everyone else who is probably bored to death by now) about it any more.
Back to the racing.


I'm honestly struggling to see what other possible interpretation could be derived from NOR 5.2 inclusive, as written. That Telefonica was given an interpretation prior to leaving Sanya is a given: for the IJ to now claim that the "application" of that interpretation conflicted with the RC interpretation of March 18th as the indication that 5.2 was "ambiguous" is unsustainable.

Telefonica was advised that the NOR "placed a minimums, not maximum, on the number of storm jibs which could be carried" - which is correct. 5.2.2b then qualifies this interpretation as to the status of any additional storm jib (or HWJ) to be carried. End of debate. "Ambiguity" is a cop-out by the IJ, whose credibility deserves the ridicule it has attracted.


Sheesh! (I know I said I wouldn't do this)
5.2.1 sets out a minimum sail count of specific sails.
5.2.2 CAN be read to set out the number and combination of sails IN ADDITION TO 5.2.1 because the scentence starts with the phrase IN ADDITION TO and it does not specifically state that the sails in 5.2.1 are inclusive of that set (like it should and as you seem to believe).
That we (you vs the world) are arguing about it is the very definition of ambiguity, no?

I'm honestly struggling..


I know you are, and I don't doubt you're honest intent.
I would really prefer Telefonica to have 20 less points but the logic of the international jury is sound.
The f*&k up is in the original NoR which has now been clarified and effectively ratified by an IJ.
Who are these people ridiculing it's decision apart from you?

Try this - same words as 5.2.2 in a slightly different order:
5.2.2 To a maximum of, and in addition to, the sails required to be on board in NOR 5.2.1(a) a Boat may carry on board:

Or this - substituting the phrase inclusive of for in addition to:
5.2.2 Inclusive of the sails required to be on board in NOR 5.2.1(a) a Boat may carry on board a maximum of:

Inclusive of
is what they meant, in addition to is what they wrote.
Surely you can see the difference in their meaning?

#61 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,382 posts

Posted 21 April 2012 - 08:14 AM

Inclusive of is what they meant, in addition to is what they wrote.
They wrote and what they meant? Like I said why do the two major competitions n our sport end up in a shit fight like this?

#62 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Cannot be left blank

Posted 21 April 2012 - 09:11 AM

Inclusive of is what they meant, in addition to is what they wrote.
They wrote and what they meant? Like I said why do the two major competitions n our sport end up in a shit fight like this?


Because of the English language.
It's less precise and a lot of words have more than one meaning compared to say German language.
Why aren't the rules more precise?
Because sailing has traditionally accepted a variety of solutions in getting from A to B; the rules allow you to make choices.

I don't see it as a shit fight.
I like discussion; it's better than the dull silence or small talk you get when a bunch of people sit in front of a TV.
Indio and I might never agree. Maybe we'll laugh about it one day; maybe we won't.
Maybe we're both wrong - how would we ever know; wait for someone to tell us?

It's also because that's what sailing is.
Sometime you can out-think your opponent (usually and preferably on the course...) and sometimes you just have to out-work them.
Either path to victory is valid.

In terms of the bigger picture which is what I think you were actually referring to:
My cynical answer would be that successful men with big ego's realise that have limited opportunities to win and they lose sight of the simplicity of the sport and the humility that losing teaches you.
They choose to employ whatever means they have available to them to maximise their chances and that usually involves money and the law.
At some point two or more 'winners' are going to butt heads, so to speak, and at the end of it one of them becomes a 'loser'.
That's a lot of motivation for some people.

#63 thetruth

thetruth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,382 posts

Posted 21 April 2012 - 09:26 AM

Well to cut that down to a few lines. The sport has tried hard to make it more appealing right? We did that in the 80's with windsurfing. Look at the numbers at youth worlds in winsurfer and 29er and multi hull. Fuck all in all the avenues to make it more attracive. That is an undeniable fact. To have all this bullshit with rules and "interpretations", fuck me are we serious as a sport? Our percieved spokesman "Sir Russell" now agrees he has fucked up!






Inclusive of is what they meant, in addition to is what they wrote.
They wrote and what they meant? Like I said why do the two major competitions n our sport end up in a shit fight like this?


Because of the English language.
It's less precise and a lot of words have more than one meaning compared to say German language.
Why aren't the rules more precise?
Because sailing has traditionally accepted a variety of solutions in getting from A to B; the rules allow you to make choices.

I don't see it as a shit fight.
I like discussion; it's better than the dull silence or small talk you get when a bunch of people sit in front of a TV.
Indio and I might never agree. Maybe we'll laugh about it one day; maybe we won't.
Maybe we're both wrong - how would we ever know; wait for someone to tell us?

It's also because that's what sailing is.
Sometime you can out-think your opponent (usually and preferably on the course...) and sometimes you just have to out-work them.
Either path to victory is valid.

In terms of the bigger picture which is what I think you were actually referring to:
My cynical answer would be that successful men with big ego's realise that have limited opportunities to win and they lose sight of the simplicity of the sport and the humility that losing teaches you.
They choose to employ whatever means they have available to them to maximise their chances and that usually involves money and the law.
At some point two or more 'winners' are going to butt heads, so to speak, and at the end of it one of them becomes a 'loser'.
That's a lot of motivation for some people.



#64 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Cannot be left blank

Posted 21 April 2012 - 09:53 AM

Truth
I'm not trying to make a living from it so it's all just entertainment to me.
My view would be that it's never going to be very popular and I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to prove otherwise.
That doesn't make pitting your wits against the waves and wind (or watching other who are really good at it) any less fulfilling as far as I can see.
Juries interpret situations in ever race regatta.
The bigger the campaign is the more likely it is that you can get a good sailing lawyer to try and save you some time and money.
Stay away from big business if you don't like lawyers; it's not that hard unless of course you want to go play with the big dogs.

#65 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,022 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 21 April 2012 - 10:26 AM

Apparently some people are struggling to see the ambiguity which to me seems quite clear.

snip

[/indent]Everyone was free to interpret the rule as Telefonica did.


That is very true, it was ambiguous, but while everyone was "free to interpret" it that way, Telefonica was the only boat to receive communication from someone within the overall Organizing Authority endorsing that interpretation.

Apparently some people are struggling to see why that was an improper action by the OA (through its agent, the CM of the VOR rule), which is grounds for redress to affected boats.

But seriously, this is all academic, they will find a reason not to give redress (probably arguing that the CM is not an official of the OA) and will sweep this screw-up (which very definitely benefitted Telefonica) under the rug. And yeah, this does happen in other sports as well. But while I agree Telefonica did nothing wrong, they still were unfairly benefitted, which puts an asterisk next to their leg 4 finish.

The way to read this could be the following: Telefonica, who were able to exploit a mistake by the racing authorities, was able to race with a unique suite of headsails, helping it secure third place by a matter of minutes.

#66 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Cannot be left blank

Posted 21 April 2012 - 10:44 AM


Apparently some people are struggling to see the ambiguity which to me seems quite clear.

snip

[/indent]Everyone was free to interpret the rule as Telefonica did.


That is very true, it was ambiguous, but while everyone was "free to interpret" it that way, Telefonica was the only boat to receive communication from someone within the overall Organizing Authority endorsing that interpretation.

Apparently some people are struggling to see why that was an improper action by the OA (through its agent, the CM of the VOR rule), which is grounds for redress to affected boats.

But seriously, this is all academic, they will find a reason not to give redress (probably arguing that the CM is not an official of the OA) and will sweep this screw-up (which very definitely benefitted Telefonica) under the rug. And yeah, this does happen in other sports as well. But while I agree Telefonica did nothing wrong, they still were unfairly benefitted, which puts an asterisk next to their leg 4 finish.

The way to read this could be the following: Telefonica, who were able to exploit a mistake by the racing authorities, was able to race with a unique suite of headsails, helping it secure third place by a matter of minutes.


I'm in two minds about the effect of the endorsement.
I'm an advocate of transparency so I'd prefer if all questions and answers were published.
I don't know enough about sailing at this level to know whether that's the case or not?
In the F1 environment it isn't (for example).
BUT
All the boats were capable of seeking the same endorsement.
It's up to all boats to interpret the rules (and question their boat's legality) as they see fit.
i don't see why anyone other then the boats should be responsible for informing the boats about possible interpretations.

Put simply if the question and answer should have been published then redress is warranted.
If all Q & A's aren't published then I can't see a case for redress.

Of course if any other boat questioned 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 at any point before the 16th and was advised differently then there is definitely a case for redress.

Oh, and if I was in the Camper organisation and I'd asked my legal team to examine the rules at some point before the 16th then I might also be seeking redress from them (so to speak). :angry:

Another question in regard to redress - did Telefonica actually make a gain from their sail choice relative to Camper or were they actually disadvantaged (refer to video showing kites aloft down the coast to Auckland)?
A serious calculation of redress would involve both boats handing over sail logs and polars wouldn't it?

#67 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,022 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 21 April 2012 - 01:05 PM

First, there is the question "did they gain advantage or not", well, the easy argument is that if they didn't think it was an advantage, then they wouldn't have made that choice. The other argument is, even if after the fact, say it didn't work out as a good choice, it still was a choice not given to the other boats. Just having the option was an advantage.

Second, regarding who's "responsibility" it was to interpret the rule, well, all the other boats correctly interpreted the intent (or at least didn't bank on the wrong interpretation) and Telefonica and the Chief Measurer did not. Communication on minor points between a competitor and the RC happen all the time, where people ask for clarifications on the rules. That's normal. Usually it is trivial and no advantage comes from knowing that clarification. However, a very good, professional RC will publicly post on the notice board or announce answers to all questions. Specifically because it covers their ass in this instance of seeking redress, because some boats might see it as offering outside assistance.

Here is an analogy:

You have a race around an island, the NOR says "annual race around xyz island" and the SI, written by the new team just taking over from the old team, says "Start at X, round the island to port, end Y". Fine, but there is a long, submerged sand bar that extends a mile to the south of the island, it is 8-9 feet deep and all the boats draw 6-7 feet, there is a navigational bouy that marks the end of the sand bar, depending on the wind conditions, you may or may not want to cut inside the bouy. In years past, the bouy was listed as a mark of the course, but this time it isn't mentioned, it's shown on the chart of the course but not specifically mentioned as a markof the coarse. They made a mistake. Just before the race, competitor T asks the guy in the chase boat, "I notice the nav bouy isn't specifically listed as a mark of the course. Does that mean we can cut inside the bouy?", the guy in the chase boat says "the way I read it, yeah". Guy in chase boat says nothing to anybody else, he wasn't asked. Competitor T cuts out the bouy while everyone else goas around, and takes third place. They are protested for not following the course, but rightly point out that it was ambiguous and besides, the chase boat said they could. Protest thrown out (rightly). Competitor T did nothing "wrong", but were the other competitors finishes affected by the action of the chase boat? Definitely. Will they get redress? Maybe yes, maybe no, and maybe on a case by case basis yes or no. What would have been the right action? Chase boat gets asked the question, contacts the Committee boat, who signals to the fleet to come within hail or whatever, announces a course change to include the nav bouy as a mark on the course.

In Tele's case, the last several days were a beat into heavy air towards New Zealand, neck and neck with several competitors. You don't think a better selection of upwind heavy air headsails gave them an advantage? In this case the right thing to do would be the CM should have deferred to the RC, which should have announced a clarification to the rule based on the inquiry. Tele of course is being coy about it, because they knew this is they way it should have played out. Everybody else involved knows it too.

#68 Koukel

Koukel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 936 posts
  • Location:Portland, Oregon
  • Interests:Sailing

Posted 21 April 2012 - 01:59 PM

Apparently some people are struggling to see the ambiguity which to me seems quite clear.

Firstly the applicable NOR clauses:

5.2 WHILE RACING
5.2.1
(a ) A Boat shall have on board 1 storm trysail, 1 storm jib and1 heavy weather jib (HWJ).
(b ) In an In-Port Race. Boats shall also have on board an In Port race spinnaker as described in NOR APPENDIX E.
(c ) The storm trysail shall only be used in case of safety or emergency and sheeted without a mainsail.
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)
(c ) 3 Spinnakers including 1 fractional spinnaker, which complies with Volvo Open 70 Rule v.3. Section 11.3.9. None of these 3 additional spinnakers can be an In Port race spinnaker as described in NOR APPENDIX E
(d ) 1 Staysail (SS). Only permitted on a leg.

And now the problem:

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:

Another plain english way of saying the same thing:

As well as the required sails, you can also carry additional sails according to the following list...

Now I'd bet my life that's not how the rule was intended to be interpreted but given the way it was written it certainly can be.
The problem is the word addition and it's location in the sentence.
Instead of chopping together legalese from previously written rules elsewhere it could better have been written thus:

"The maximum number of sails allowed to be on board, including those listed in 5.2.1, shall be be no more than..."

Everyone was free to interpret the rule as Telefonica did.

Spec writer.

I'm honestly struggling to see what other possible interpretation could be derived from NOR 5.2 inclusive, as written. That Telefonica was given an interpretation prior to leaving Sanya is a given: for the IJ to now claim that the "application" of that interpretation conflicted with the RC interpretation of March 18th as the indication that 5.2 was "ambiguous" is unsustainable.

Telefonica was advised that the NOR "placed a minimums, not maximum, on the number of storm jibs which could be carried" - which is correct. 5.2.2b then qualifies this interpretation as to the status of any additional storm jib (or HWJ) to be carried. End of debate. "Ambiguity" is a cop-out by the IJ, whose credibility deserves the ridicule it has attracted.

Contractor.

Koukel

#69 onimod

onimod

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 983 posts
  • Location:Sydney
  • Interests:Cannot be left blank

Posted 21 April 2012 - 02:05 PM

First, there is the question "did they gain advantage or not", well, the easy argument is that if they didn't think it was an advantage, then they wouldn't have made that choice. The other argument is, even if after the fact, say it didn't work out as a good choice, it still was a choice not given to the other boats. Just having the option was an advantage.


Everyone has to make a sail choice before a leg.
No one knows whether that choice was wise or not until the leg is done.
Given that Tele didn't have an extra sail but a different combination the advantage isn't clear.
I bet you Iker would have preferred to have a deeper kite as Cmper closed in closer to the line; maybe that was the one he chose to substitute.
It's entirely possible that the 'extra' jib was never used and until we get more information I can't say there was an advantage because I don't know; that's all I'm saying.

Second, regarding who's "responsibility" it was to interpret the rule, well, all the other boats correctly interpreted the intent (or at least didn't bank on the wrong interpretation) and Telefonica and the Chief Measurer did not. Communication on minor points between a competitor and the RC happen all the time, where people ask for clarifications on the rules. That's normal. Usually it is trivial and no advantage comes from knowing that clarification. However, a very good, professional RC will publicly post on the notice board or announce answers to all questions. Specifically because it covers their ass in this instance of seeking redress, because some boats might see it as offering outside assistance.


There's no points for correctly interpreting the intent.
Neither interpretation more correct than the other prior to the clarification issued on the 18th.

The failure to inform other compeditiors is where I'd be seekign redress, but again I think you need to prove advantage at least to the satisfaction of the jury.
I'd think you'd also need to ask about every other clarification issued to every other boat to see if other boats had other similar advantages on the same leg if the modus operandi of the CM and RC is not to inform all compeditors of all questions and answers.
Unless the CM and RC are required to inform the competitors of all Q and As then redress seems unlikely.

Can - of - worms

#70 garboard strake

garboard strake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 216 posts

Posted 21 April 2012 - 03:30 PM

I understand there is an actual sailboat race today. What time does this SA Sailgate court hearing go into recess?

#71 harzak

harzak

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 566 posts
  • Location:Norway

Posted 21 April 2012 - 03:53 PM

I understand there is an actual sailboat race today. What time does this SA Sailgate court hearing go into recess?

At the warning signal, 10 minutes before the gun.

#72 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,980 posts

Posted 21 April 2012 - 05:32 PM

Great race , good action . Put down the law books and enjoy :)

#73 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,980 posts

Posted 21 April 2012 - 05:36 PM

Karma time . Tele goes from first to last as they round the wrong mark :o

#74 Sailor90

Sailor90

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,935 posts
  • Location:PNW
  • Interests:A Scow racer, Melges 24's, Laser, and big boats in Chicago.

Posted 21 April 2012 - 05:38 PM

(Golf Clap) Tele

Edit: That was hard to watch.

Really shows you what one little mistake can cascade into.

Can't get the kite down, can't get it in the boat, slow to raise the genoa, never get a full hoist, as a result they barely beat upwind at half boat speed to the windward mark they were supposed to round.

#75 Mash

Mash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts
  • Location:Lyon - Fr

Posted 21 April 2012 - 05:41 PM

You gotta admit, Tele did not do a lot of things wrong during this edition, but when they do, boy, they do it in style :)



M- and well done Groupama

#76 maxmini

maxmini

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,980 posts

Posted 21 April 2012 - 05:51 PM

Lots of position trading on this one . Puma last to third, tele first to last , Camper back and forth and now up to second.

Update , puma crosses camper .

#77 harzak

harzak

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 566 posts
  • Location:Norway

Posted 21 April 2012 - 06:02 PM

What will the points be for this inport, considering edit: one boat didn't start?

#78 Pierre S

Pierre S

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Location:60 Norff

Posted 21 April 2012 - 06:22 PM

6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 0.

#79 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 21 April 2012 - 08:09 PM

Sheesh! (I know I said I wouldn't do this)
5.2.1 sets out a minimum sail count of specific sails.
5.2.2 CAN be read to set out the number and combination of sails IN ADDITION TO 5.2.1 because the scentence starts with the phrase IN ADDITION TO and it does not specifically state that the sails in 5.2.1 are inclusive of that set (like it should and as you seem to believe).
That we (you vs the world) are arguing about it is the very definition of ambiguity, no?

We are indeed separated by a common language...This is my final attempt to explain why there can only be one interpretation, by paraphrasing the allegedly "ambiguous" rule as follows:

5.2.2b: In addition to the three compulsory sails (1 storm trysail, 1 storm jib, 1 HWJ), a boat MAY also carry the following maximum sails:
a: 1 mainsail
b: 2 headsails
c: 3 spinnakers
d: 1 staysail.
If a boat wishes to carry a second storm jib or HWJ, it will be counted (included) as one of the 2 headsails allowed.
Quite simple really....

"Ambiguous"
The IJ decision Conclusion 2.3 claims: "2.3 The interpretation emailed to the teams on 16th March conflicted with the interpretation previously applied by the Chief Measurer. This indicates that the meaning of NoR 5.2 is ambiguous." (This was the "interpretation" previously attributed to the poor Chief Measurer by the IJ). BUT this conclusion conflicts with the first reply in the very same "interpretation" Q&A emailed to all teams:


"Questions and Answers:
Sails on a Leg.
Q1. Has there been an official interpretation or Q & A issued previously about this issue?
A1. No."

So if there was no interpretation issued, there is no "ambiguity" by the IJ's own criterior which led to their conclusion, nor is there one in the English language used in the relevant NoRs.

As I've maintained all along, the IJ have fucked up badly. They have gone out of their way to create an environment which enabled them to ignore the merits of the protest: by doing so, the IJ is abdicating their legal obligations to enforce the rules they're charged to.

Telefonica cheated - they did not use a "loophole" because there was/is none. At best, they could claim not to have been able to understand the English composition, but this is tenuous because Groupama evidently had no problems interpreting the NoRs correctly. The protest should have been upheld.

#80 edelweis

edelweis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 568 posts

Posted 21 April 2012 - 08:46 PM

This is my final attempt to ...


Hopefullly.

#81 Cyrille Hydrogene

Cyrille Hydrogene

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 21 April 2012 - 08:48 PM

Karma time . Tele goes from first to last as they round the wrong mark :o


You are so right. The ocean racing gods have decided to punish Tele for the leg 4 extra storm gib debacle. Good points for G4 anyway!

#82 dlangpap

dlangpap

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 156 posts

Posted 21 April 2012 - 11:44 PM

Ok, as far as I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong), the matter is as follows>

1. The rule is ambiguous or, at least, appears so to TLF.

2. TLF asks for clarification.

3. Clarification is given to them but not to everyone.

4. As per the rules, if anyone asks for clarification, the answer should be made public to the other teams.

5. This did not happen, the other teams did not know about the clarification given to TLF.

If this is so, nothing more, nothing less, something illegal happened, namely, the clarification not being made available to the other teams. If so, some sort of compensation must be found, either give a penalty to TLF or points to the others or allow them to sail a leg like TLF did. On the other hand, maybe TLF did not do anything wrong legally (maybe the mistake came from the organizers), but isn't it unsportmanslike?

#83 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 22 April 2012 - 12:04 AM

Ok, as far as I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong), the matter is as follows>

1. The rule is ambiguous or, at least, appears so to TLF.

2. TLF asks for clarification.

3. Clarification is given to them but not to everyone.

4. As per the rules, if anyone asks for clarification, the answer should be made public to the other teams.

5. This did not happen, the other teams did not know about the clarification given to TLF.

If this is so, nothing more, nothing less, something illegal happened, namely, the clarification not being made available to the other teams. If so, some sort of compensation must be found, either give a penalty to TLF or points to the others or allow them to sail a leg like TLF did. On the other hand, maybe TLF did not do anything wrong legally (maybe the mistake came from the organizers), but isn't it unsportmanslike?


Camper tried to claim compensation and, unsurprisingly, were told "Tough titties!!" by that collection of self-serving twats on the IJ.

#84 edelweis

edelweis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 568 posts

Posted 22 April 2012 - 04:44 PM

Livestream starts in 1min

#85 Dave S

Dave S

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 251 posts

Posted 22 April 2012 - 04:55 PM

Camper tried to claim compensation and, unsurprisingly, were told "Tough titties!!" by that collection of self-serving twats on the IJ.

Self-serving? In what way?

Or did you just write the first insult that came to mind?

#86 Christian

Christian

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,114 posts
  • Location:Hopefully on the water

Posted 22 April 2012 - 06:08 PM

First, there is the question "did they gain advantage or not", well, the easy argument is that if they didn't think it was an advantage, then they wouldn't have made that choice. The other argument is, even if after the fact, say it didn't work out as a good choice, it still was a choice not given to the other boats. Just having the option was an advantage.

Second, regarding who's "responsibility" it was to interpret the rule, well, all the other boats correctly interpreted the intent (or at least didn't bank on the wrong interpretation) and Telefonica and the Chief Measurer did not. Communication on minor points between a competitor and the RC happen all the time, where people ask for clarifications on the rules. That's normal. Usually it is trivial and no advantage comes from knowing that clarification. However, a very good, professional RC will publicly post on the notice board or announce answers to all questions. Specifically because it covers their ass in this instance of seeking redress, because some boats might see it as offering outside assistance.

Here is an analogy:

You have a race around an island, the NOR says "annual race around xyz island" and the SI, written by the new team just taking over from the old team, says "Start at X, round the island to port, end Y". Fine, but there is a long, submerged sand bar that extends a mile to the south of the island, it is 8-9 feet deep and all the boats draw 6-7 feet, there is a navigational bouy that marks the end of the sand bar, depending on the wind conditions, you may or may not want to cut inside the bouy. In years past, the bouy was listed as a mark of the course, but this time it isn't mentioned, it's shown on the chart of the course but not specifically mentioned as a markof the coarse. They made a mistake. Just before the race, competitor T asks the guy in the chase boat, "I notice the nav bouy isn't specifically listed as a mark of the course. Does that mean we can cut inside the bouy?", the guy in the chase boat says "the way I read it, yeah". Guy in chase boat says nothing to anybody else, he wasn't asked. Competitor T cuts out the bouy while everyone else goas around, and takes third place. They are protested for not following the course, but rightly point out that it was ambiguous and besides, the chase boat said they could. Protest thrown out (rightly). Competitor T did nothing "wrong", but were the other competitors finishes affected by the action of the chase boat? Definitely. Will they get redress? Maybe yes, maybe no, and maybe on a case by case basis yes or no. What would have been the right action? Chase boat gets asked the question, contacts the Committee boat, who signals to the fleet to come within hail or whatever, announces a course change to include the nav bouy as a mark on the course.

In Tele's case, the last several days were a beat into heavy air towards New Zealand, neck and neck with several competitors. You don't think a better selection of upwind heavy air headsails gave them an advantage? In this case the right thing to do would be the CM should have deferred to the RC, which should have announced a clarification to the rule based on the inquiry. Tele of course is being coy about it, because they knew this is they way it should have played out. Everybody else involved knows it too.



You totally missed the point in your own example: The one competitor, who actually read the SI's and understood them gained an advantage over the flock of sheep that just relied on years past - the "confirmation" of their interpretation by a random rc crew BEFORE the start did NOT gain them an unfair advantage - they already found the advantage themselves - and in addition they got the "help" before racing. The action of the chase boat driver did not constitute an unfair advantage to the boat in question.

#87 edelweis

edelweis

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 568 posts

Posted 22 April 2012 - 09:06 PM

So Puma gained a 5nm separation and lost nothing in the west.
Camper not so good...

#88 Cyrille Hydrogene

Cyrille Hydrogene

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 22 April 2012 - 09:40 PM

So Puma gained a 5nm separation and lost nothing in the west.
Camper not so good...


Very impressive start by Puma, they overtook Tele nicely and flew away on the reach! With better angle AND the same speed as the others!
Camper doesn't like this angle, and already lost quite a lot of ground. Bad for them. After a very crappy start, Groupama are coming back nicely from behind, and I wouldn't be surprised if they manage to do a passing move on Telefonica before the day is over.

#89 hunter22

hunter22

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 209 posts
  • Location:Windemere, Fl

Posted 22 April 2012 - 10:26 PM

i could not find this question answered anywhere else so i will add it here. is anyone plannning on going to miami so see this? i was wondering if there is an anarchy meet-up planned. i am thinking about heading down there the last weekend to watch them start on the next leg.

#90 Bmajor

Bmajor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Location:USA, Midwest

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:03 PM

HOLY CRAP, THE VOLVO OCEAN RACE IS ON FOX SPORTS MIDWEST NOW!



#91 Bmajor

Bmajor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Location:USA, Midwest

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:10 PM

i could not find this question answered anywhere else so i will add it here. is anyone plannning on going to miami so see this? i was wondering if there is an anarchy meet-up planned. i am thinking about heading down there the last weekend to watch them start on the next leg.


Have traveled to the last three (Annapolis x2, Boston), and planned to go to Miami, but may not at this point.

#92 smackdaddy

smackdaddy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,683 posts

Posted 22 April 2012 - 11:53 PM

i could not find this question answered anywhere else so i will add it here. is anyone plannning on going to miami so see this? i was wondering if there is an anarchy meet-up planned. i am thinking about heading down there the last weekend to watch them start on the next leg.


I'm hoping to be there. Not sure yet though.

#93 Indio

Indio

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,712 posts
  • Location:Auckland

Posted 23 April 2012 - 01:38 AM


Camper tried to claim compensation and, unsurprisingly, were told "Tough titties!!" by that collection of self-serving twats on the IJ.

Self-serving? In what way?

Or did you just write the first insult that came to mind?


You're right: I apologise to all the twats I may have insulted by associating them with the members of the IJ. Including you.

#94 Rohanoz

Rohanoz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,490 posts
  • Location:Australian East Coast
  • Interests:A bad day sailing is still better than a good day at work.

Posted 23 April 2012 - 03:37 AM


So Puma gained a 5nm separation and lost nothing in the west.
Camper not so good...


Very impressive start by Puma, they overtook Tele nicely and flew away on the reach! With better angle AND the same speed as the others!
Camper doesn't like this angle, and already lost quite a lot of ground. Bad for them. After a very crappy start, Groupama are coming back nicely from behind, and I wouldn't be surprised if they manage to do a passing move on Telefonica before the day is over.



Once again we see Puma taking the high risk strategy of splitting from the fleet and will end up a peacock or a feather duster.

So, why would a faster boat go for separation on the fleet? Surely just stay between the fleet and the mark? Apply a loose cover?
No extra points for winning by a day - no points for coming last either!

#95 Mexican

Mexican

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,489 posts
  • Location:From south of the border

Posted 23 April 2012 - 03:52 AM

Once again we see Puma taking the high risk strategy of splitting from the fleet and will end up a peacock or a feather duster.

So, why would a faster boat go for separation on the fleet? Surely just stay between the fleet and the mark? Apply a loose cover?
No extra points for winning by a day - no points for coming last either!

Umm, I think if you look at the tracker they have positioned themselves between the fleet and next corner.

Last time I looked, positioning yourself forward and to leeward on a downwond course and to the north of the fleet when you're racing north both qualify as covering the fleet.

Would you rather they were astern and to the south?

Mex

#96 Cheap Beer

Cheap Beer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA

Posted 23 April 2012 - 04:14 AM



So Puma gained a 5nm separation and lost nothing in the west.
Camper not so good...


Very impressive start by Puma, they overtook Tele nicely and flew away on the reach! With better angle AND the same speed as the others!
Camper doesn't like this angle, and already lost quite a lot of ground. Bad for them. After a very crappy start, Groupama are coming back nicely from behind, and I wouldn't be surprised if they manage to do a passing move on Telefonica before the day is over.



Once again we see Puma taking the high risk strategy of splitting from the fleet and will end up a peacock or a feather duster.

So, why would a faster boat go for separation on the fleet? Surely just stay between the fleet and the mark? Apply a loose cover?
No extra points for winning by a day - no points for coming last either!



Hmmm. Care to revise your previous comments?

#97 Swanno (Ohf Shore)

Swanno (Ohf Shore)

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,745 posts
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia

Posted 23 April 2012 - 04:16 AM


Once again we see Puma taking the high risk strategy of splitting from the fleet and will end up a peacock or a feather duster.

So, why would a faster boat go for separation on the fleet? Surely just stay between the fleet and the mark? Apply a loose cover?
No extra points for winning by a day - no points for coming last either!

Umm, I think if you look at the tracker they have positioned themselves between the fleet and next corner.

Last time I looked, positioning yourself forward and to leeward on a downwond course and to the north of the fleet when you're racing north both qualify as covering the fleet.

Would you rather they were astern and to the south?

Mex


Mex,

Seems Camper have got a real good cover on the back end of the fleet.

#98 Rohanoz

Rohanoz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,490 posts
  • Location:Australian East Coast
  • Interests:A bad day sailing is still better than a good day at work.

Posted 23 April 2012 - 04:22 AM

I'd agree on a windward return, but they are racing ENE for the first part to get around South America.
IMHO, they should be putting themselves directly in front of the pack straight along the rhumbline, and use the speed to get some forward gap.
The area of wind they are approaching is going to be random in the coming days, unless they are convinced the better wind will come from the land then they best head up a bit to get on Tele/Grpa line or they will be rolled...

I'm just jealous anyway - would love to be out there in those conditions! Bloody raining and no wind here.

#99 the paradox of thrift

the paradox of thrift

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,375 posts
  • Location:Mos-Vegas
  • Interests:I like sailing

Posted 23 April 2012 - 04:44 AM

The routing suggests that getting east will pay, but there is uncertainty in the forecast. If that's the only information they have they have to run with it.

Puma are going really well but Telefonica and possibly Groupama are slowly gaining Easterly leverage which might see Puma's lead disolve quickly.

The forecast is complex, it's going to go light. They'll all be nutting through the "what-if" scenarios. As the breeze shifts they'll want to make sure they can sail at good reaching angles to build apparent.

Camper and Abu Dhabi are just trying to stay in touch. I have to wonder - Camper has known weaknesses and strengths, but what are Abu Dhabi's strengths?

#100 Rohanoz

Rohanoz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,490 posts
  • Location:Australian East Coast
  • Interests:A bad day sailing is still better than a good day at work.

Posted 23 April 2012 - 04:50 AM

.... I have to wonder - Camper has known weaknesses and strengths, but what are Abu Dhabi's strengths?


Flat water beam reaching with the Middle East sponsors watching.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users