Jump to content


Rule 49.2 Lipton Cup


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#1 Snapper

Snapper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,587 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 19 November 2012 - 06:30 PM

Rule 49.2 reads:

49.2 When lifelines are required by the class rules or the sailing instructions
they shall be taut, and competitors shall not position any part of
their torsos outside them, except briefly to perform a necessary task.
On boats equipped with upper and lower lifelines of wire, a competitor
sitting on the deck facing outboard with his waist inside the lower
lifeline may have the upper part of his body outside the upper lifeline.


Here is a photo of SDYC. It's a good example of legal and illegal all in one. I was hoping to find a shot where they had 3 or more crew doing this but this is the best example of what I felt was a violation. I called them on it and the SDYC tactician, Mark Reynolds, called me 'a fucking idiot' for me having pointed out what I felt was a violation and my intent to protest if they did it again. They stopped.
At the J/70 demo day yesterday, Reynolds asked me what rule I was calling them on, I told him, and he very professionally said 'you're a bad sport and now I know you're full of shit'.
So, read the rule and take a look at the attached photo, imagine 3 more crew standing up and hiking like this and please let me know if this looks like a violation of 49.2.

I should also add that we had two junior members on our team who got to hear the choice language hurled back at us so there was grounds for another protest under rule 69. I didn't protest, but have to say I am disappointed in the way Reynolds conducted himself on and off the water. I always thought he was a nice guy.

Attached Files



#2 bsainsbury

bsainsbury

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 308 posts
  • Location:Annapolis
  • Interests:Sail boating

Posted 19 November 2012 - 06:53 PM

That doesn't seem like it's a more effective hiking style.

#3 VwaP

VwaP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,242 posts
  • Location:Sunny South Florida
  • Interests:Private investigator by day party gurl by night

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:00 PM

Are you sure the guy in black might of briefly had flautance ?

#4 DoRag

DoRag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,919 posts
  • Location:Where the sun doesn't shine.

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:10 PM

Maybe the time for a protest was during the event rather than a week afterward? While SDYC was totally wrong, addressing the issue way after the fact doesn't do any good. Kinda like trying to admonish a yellow labrador - it it's not immediate, it ain't effective.

From the movie Top Gun - "the rules are here for your safety and the safety of your crew. Either obey them or you will be flying a cargo of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong."

#5 DarthSailor

DarthSailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:17 PM

You ran up against a pro that acted like a douche nozzle when called on something, congrats you have finally arrived.

#6 Janer

Janer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,635 posts
  • Location:Santa Barbarian

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:30 PM

Seems like three people on the rail in full hike would be more effective than three people trying to stand in a bent over position. In this shot the two people on the rail are not even in full hike. What's the point? But no excuse for the foul language.

#7 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,999 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:21 PM

It does look like he is trying to leverage himself outside the lifelines.

#8 WHL

WHL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,672 posts
  • Location:49-19.8N, 123-09.7W
  • Interests:Offshore, Star, Farr 30, R Boat racing, and gunkholing in classic daysailers

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:25 AM

Snap,

- 7.11 of the J105 Class rules define taut: "as the total deflection caused by the force (not less than 11.2lbs) straight down and straight up must not exceed 8 inches. The "total deflection up and down" is ambiguous. Is that 4" down + 4" up compared with a taut lifeline with zero deflection? Or is that any deflection in any direction from taut is permitted up to 8" ?? If the former interpretation, then that seems like another way of restating the 4" (50mm) deflection in the "OSR 3.14.2.a), and if so, the boat in the pic has broken the class rule. If it's 8" deflection away from a taut lifeline with zero deflection, then it looks like they comply.

On the face of it, that guy leaning over the top:
a. Is not performing anything essential even under the class rules (unless as VwaP said, he might HAVE had flatulence) so yes, his torso is outside the lifelines while his butt is not on the deck contrary to 49.2
b. Is trying to impress the owner with his zealous coolness
c. was surprised seeing his significant other "blowing the guy" on another boat

#9 DoRag

DoRag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,919 posts
  • Location:Where the sun doesn't shine.

Posted 20 November 2012 - 05:34 AM

It does look like he is trying to leverage himself outside the lifelines.


Seems that way.

#10 NorCalLaser

NorCalLaser

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 789 posts
  • Location:Berkeley, California

Posted 20 November 2012 - 05:52 AM

I am disappointed in the way Reynolds conducted himself on and off the water. I always thought he was a nice guy.

just curious, what made you think he was a nice guy?

and who the fuck wears a helmet for j/105 sailing?

#11 sunseeker

sunseeker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,354 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 06:16 AM

DoRag knows all the nice guys in the 105 class cuz he faired all their bottoms.

#12 Somebody Else

Somebody Else

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,836 posts
  • Location:Southern California
  • Interests:Shootings, just like HotRod!

Posted 20 November 2012 - 06:55 AM

who the fuck wears a helmet for j/105 sailing?


Someone who has had a concussion or has a plate in their head.

#13 GybeSetŪ

GybeSetŪ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,187 posts
  • Location:the 'River of Light', Tomorrow-morrow Land

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:20 AM

good work snap

these cheating cunts are all over the top ( cheater) boats, not surprisingly

#14 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,641 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:25 AM

You ran up against a pro that acted like a douche nozzle when called on something,


In other breaking news, scientists say the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, and that the moon revolves around the earth. Biologists posits that bears do shit in the woods.

#15 GybeSetŪ

GybeSetŪ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,187 posts
  • Location:the 'River of Light', Tomorrow-morrow Land

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:15 AM

snap

is a forehand going out on the sprit of an irc maxi/minimaxi, or transpac boat doing a 'necessary task' ?

I think not, its a breach

#16 (p)Irate

(p)Irate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,172 posts
  • Location:Where the streets have no name

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:39 AM

It does look like he is trying to leverage himself outside the lifelines.

Can't you just say he's trying to lean outside the lifelines? TSA douche asked me to leverage myself against the wall and I gave him the WTF? are you talking about look? Wasn't good. Two countries separated by a common language.

In any case the guy over the top lines is definitely cheating. The other guys I'm not so sure. Wasn't there an ISAF case about hiking and some definition of normal tasks? So many classes do it and no one is called.

#17 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,641 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:51 AM

ISAF Case 36
Rule 49.2, Crew Position
Positioning of crew members relative to lifelines.

Summary of the Facts
A boat in an offshore class, while close-hauled, had a crew member positioned, for several minutes on two occasions, next to the shrouds with his feet on the deck and his legs inside but touching the lifelines. While his torso was substantially upright, part of it was outboard of an imaginary line projected vertically from the top of the lifelines. The boat was disqualified under rule 49.2 and appealed.

Attached File  Case 36.png   24.9K   18 downloads

Decision
The appeal is dismissed. To clarify the rule, the drawing shows possible crew positions. Position 6 is the position of the appellant’s crew member. Positions 1, 2 and 3 do not break the rule; positions 5 and 6 break it. On boats equipped with one lifeline, position 4 breaks the rule. On boats equipped with two wire lifelines, a crew member sitting on deck facing outboard with his waist inside the lower lifeline and the upper part of his body outside the upper lifeline, as shown in position 4, does not break the rule.

#18 GybeSetŪ

GybeSetŪ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,187 posts
  • Location:the 'River of Light', Tomorrow-morrow Land

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:53 AM

nice one P Ed

I was hoping to find a shot where they had 3 or more crew doing this but this is the best example of what I felt was a violation. I called them on it


walter, pirate they were called on 3 over the lines see

#19 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:33 AM

http://forums.sailin...howtopic=121482

Snaper, you should have protested!

#20 (p)Irate

(p)Irate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,172 posts
  • Location:Where the streets have no name

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:58 AM

nice one P Ed


I was hoping to find a shot where they had 3 or more crew doing this but this is the best example of what I felt was a violation. I called them on it


walter, pirate they were called on 3 over the lines see

Not sure whether the ISAF case of "a crew member" means "only one crew member" can hike on the lower life line.

Don't the safety categories also stipulate when lines shall be taut or not?

It's a huge grey area. In sports boats GS and others whinge about M24 hiking lines, yet on the Shaws and even our T7 we know that if the toe strap breaks when hiking we're in the piss.

Offshore and at night - stay in, on, the boat whatever happens. Inshore, smooth or sheltered waters, with boats with lifelines and those without, there should be more leeway.

The question is, is Rule 49.2 about safety or about righting moment?

I'm thinking safety. If there's a chance that the actions you take while sailing ( eg hiking) might likely result in you falling into the water then you should wear a PFD.

#21 hoom

hoom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,881 posts
  • Location:Orkland

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:18 AM

Would love to see a pic of them with 3 crew standing like that.

So we can laugh at them for hiking in a bizzare, even absurd manner that makes them look like twats.
But also because it would show proof that it was intentional & for more than a short period.

I mean that guy in one pic could just be distracted by a hot chick in/out of a bikini or something. And thats certainly a necessary task.

#22 Blackadder

Blackadder

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 394 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:51 AM

Snap, no suprises here. The "pro' you mention is the same guy who once (and only once many years ago) built a sail for me, and when it did not fit properly because the clew was too high, told me to move the primary winches.....that'll fix it....

#23 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,999 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:26 PM


It does look like he is trying to leverage himself outside the lifelines.

Can't you just say he's trying to lean outside the lifelines? TSA douche asked me to leverage myself against the wall and I gave him the WTF? are you talking about look? Wasn't good. Two countries separated by a common language.

In any case the guy over the top lines is definitely cheating. The other guys I'm not so sure. Wasn't there an ISAF case about hiking and some definition of normal tasks? So many classes do it and no one is called.

Saying that he is trying to lean outside the lifelines does not address the purpose of the rule which (I think) is more to prevent leverage beyond a certain point than provide safety inside the lifelines. Also it did not look like he was undertaking a neccessary task which is also a consideration under the rule.

Yes it's the same thing but one is analytical and one is commentary

#24 some dude

some dude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,943 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 06:10 PM

Would love to see a pic of them with 3 crew standing like that.

So we can laugh at them for hiking in a bizzare, even absurd manner that makes them look like twats.
But also because it would show proof that it was intentional & for more than a short period.

I mean that guy in one pic could just be distracted by a hot chick in/out of a bikini or something. And thats certainly a necessary task.


pretty common position while roll tacking the boat, actually. been warned and threatened with a protest (in the event, I beleive). yes, a violation of R49.2 and yes, you should have protested and next year the on the water judges should be clued in

#25 Snapper

Snapper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,587 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:50 PM


Would love to see a pic of them with 3 crew standing like that.

So we can laugh at them for hiking in a bizzare, even absurd manner that makes them look like twats.
But also because it would show proof that it was intentional & for more than a short period.

I mean that guy in one pic could just be distracted by a hot chick in/out of a bikini or something. And thats certainly a necessary task.


pretty common position while roll tacking the boat, actually. been warned and threatened with a protest (in the event, I beleive). yes, a violation of R49.2 and yes, you should have protested and next year the on the water judges should be clued in


Yes and yes. The umpires have been clued in and will be flagging violators of 49.2 next year. I should also add that with this one exception, the SDYC team were and are a class act. Chuck is one of the coolest guys on the water. I would not have brought it up if it weren't for the 'pro' being verbally abusive a week later in a public setting on Sunday.
I should have protested under 49.2 and 69 for dropping the F bomb for our two 14 and 16 year old juniors on board (16 year old was female) to hear. Really poor form.

#26 movable ballast

movable ballast

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,030 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:57 PM

Snap,

You admonished me in an another forum to stop wingeing and sail. I would suggest you take your own advice...

MB.

#27 VwaP

VwaP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,242 posts
  • Location:Sunny South Florida
  • Interests:Private investigator by day party gurl by night

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:59 PM

16 year old and an f bomb. We're they Amish?

I doubt there would be any complaining from this crowd if it was some old cougar stuffed in a one piece bending over that lifeline

#28 Snapper

Snapper

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,587 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:11 PM

Snap,

You admonished me in an another forum to stop wingeing and sail. I would suggest you take your own advice...

MB.


This is a little different than your sniveling about racing lighter boats, but duly noted, MB. Let's get out on the bay for another day sail with the gals, btw.

#29 Presuming Ed

Presuming Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,641 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:23 PM

yes, a violation of R49.2 and yes, you should have protested and next year the on the water judges should be clued in


Assuming they're umpiring using appendix Q, then it's a red flag protest and post race PC hearing (normally on the water), rather than a yellow flag protest and umpire imposed two turn penalty. 49 is not a rule which umpires are allowed to impose umpire initiated penalties, so without a protest there's nothing an umpire can do, unless he considers it a breach of rule 2 (eg unsporting by knowingly breaking the rule).

#30 movable ballast

movable ballast

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,030 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:38 PM


Snap,

You admonished me in an another forum to stop wingeing and sail. I would suggest you take your own advice...

MB.


This is a little different than your sniveling about racing lighter boats, but duly noted, MB. Let's get out on the bay for another day sail with the gals, btw.


All in jest (I could not resist). Yes a day on the bay would be cool. PM me with your schedule.

MB.

#31 TJSocal

TJSocal

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 100 posts

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:25 PM

pretty common position while roll tacking the boat, actually. been warned and threatened with a protest (in the event, I beleive). yes, a violation of R49.2 and yes, you should have protested and next year the on the water judges should be clued in


From the picture it doesn't look like the boat is getting ready to tack. But it does beg the question--would leaning out like that for maybe 5-10 seconds constitute acting "briefly to perform a necessary task" (helping to tack the boat) and therefor be interpreted as legal under R49.2? Or is leaning out for the sole purpose of affecting heel a violation?

ISAF Case 36 seems like it may hinge on "for several minutes on two occasions".

#32 Somebody Else

Somebody Else

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,836 posts
  • Location:Southern California
  • Interests:Shootings, just like HotRod!

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:29 AM

[aside] If it's taking you 10 seconds to roll tack a J/105, you're doing it wrong!

So standing like that guy in the farting/butt-sniffing position is illegal.

But how about this? This is OK, right?

Posted Image

#33 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,315 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 21 November 2012 - 02:23 AM

[aside] If it's taking you 10 seconds to roll tack a J/105, you're doing it wrong!

So standing like that guy in the farting/butt-sniffing position is illegal.

But how about this? This is OK, right?

Posted Image


OK

Posted Image

#34 NorCalLaser

NorCalLaser

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 789 posts
  • Location:Berkeley, California

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:06 AM

who the fuck wears a helmet for j/105 sailing?


Someone who has had a concussion or has a plate in their head.

thats a good reason

#35 GybeSetŪ

GybeSetŪ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,187 posts
  • Location:the 'River of Light', Tomorrow-morrow Land

Posted 21 November 2012 - 06:27 AM

So standing like that guy in the farting/butt-sniffing position is illegal.

But how about this? This is OK, right?


Incorrect, it's exactly the same rule breach (x 6)

#36 poncho

poncho

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 206 posts

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:26 AM

snap, you're just pissed you got your ass handed to you. He could have been looking for kelp on the keel, Obviously if he was looking to use his weight it would'nt be that way.

#37 GybeSetŪ

GybeSetŪ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,187 posts
  • Location:the 'River of Light', Tomorrow-morrow Land

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:15 PM

How is that obvious?

#38 surf nazi

surf nazi

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,256 posts
  • Location:LA ( the other one )

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:04 PM

Snap, no suprises here. The "pro' you mention is the same guy who once (and only once many years ago) built a sail for me, and when it did not fit properly because the clew was too high, told me to move the primary winches.....that'll fix it....


I call bullshit on that story. The placement of winches have nothing to do with clew heighth. Moving the leads would. I suspect you heard someone else tell some story like this and then you retold it but didn't get it quite right.

#39 And 1

And 1

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 13 posts

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:18 PM

From a weight perspective SDYC was not gaining any advantage. However the beats were short and extremely shifty. When the fleet split up the beat if you called the correct side there were huge potential rewards. The shifts on the right side were not consistent but when they did come thru were 50 degrees! Having a guy in this position looking up the course is the real advantage to be discussed. Even then it was difficult to call! Not sure if this guy had any input here as he is not Reynolds. He could be a spotter and then relay info to Mark R. as main trimmer/tactician had his hands full constantly adjusting the main in shifty and puffy conditions. Best way to handle it is in between races (we switched boats on a floating dock every race) to quietly when no one else is privy mention to Mark your concerns. Usually ones reaction is much more civilized in this manner than in heat of battle. If he doesn't like it just say "not protesting right now just being a bro and telling you what I think is a violation. You don't need to agree with me but I am going to make judges aware and let them decide should you continue to do it".

That being said and perhaps this should be a whole other topic to post is the subject of rule 69. Glad you didn't file snap. Anyone has the right to file for foul language but I hate to see anyone potentially kicked out of sailing for swearing. Foul language happens all the time in sailing and all sports in general and to randomly choose to punish some and not others is not fair. Either no tolerance for swearing for everyone all the time or let it go. I know it is different when kids are involved but those same kids hear sailors using foul language when they are walking on the docks after sailing, the boatyard, or by the bar. They hear it at school, on Spike TV, and god forbid the internet. Don't get me wrong, I am not an advocate for foul language, I am just against people threatening to kick someone out of sailing for swearing. Foul language is not a sailing problem it is a society problem. It is found everywhere and sailing is not immune. Now go Brodie Cobb on someone while mixing in a little foul language and I am all for 69. Usually when an adult goes on a swearing rant in front of kids whether it be on the soccer sidelines or the water they look like an idiot. It is up to the parents imo to point this out to their child and reinforce their particular family values in whatever manner they deem appropriate. Morality aside, I lose just as much respect for anyone that files 69 as the person that violated it for swearing.

#40 Sebyseb

Sebyseb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Location:Abu Dhabi/Cherbourg
  • Interests:Rhum, roots reggae, chicks and not breaking boats.

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:42 PM


So standing like that guy in the farting/butt-sniffing position is illegal.

But how about this? This is OK, right?


Incorrect, it's exactly the same rule breach (x 6)


x 7 actually, this helmsman seems out of the lifelines (and happy to do so)
Bear in mind there's a whole class of those on Lake Leman


webkit-fake-url://EF82323C-EB68-4D59-B32F-8F9C85FF7BCF/voilier-de-course-20426-284665.jpg

#41 Sebyseb

Sebyseb

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Location:Abu Dhabi/Cherbourg
  • Interests:Rhum, roots reggae, chicks and not breaking boats.

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:45 PM

Damn' that picture looked alright when I pasted it... sorry for the mishap

#42 bruno

bruno

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,813 posts

Posted 21 November 2012 - 06:09 PM

agree, I think what is missing is how long the crew was holding that position and to what effect. clearly not roll tacking, does seem to be looking upcourse, would not like to see any momentary transgression of leaning or swearing becomes grounds for banning in this sport. I have been guilty of unknowingly leaning outboard and was notified on the water of it by a friend on a competing boat in a pleasant way (coincidentally a friend and assoc. of MR, both of them nice guys IMHO). I had noroblem with him saying it and stopped doing it. yes, leaning out in a roll tack in a small light boat helps, yes it is against the rules, but if it is shifty and 1-2 crew are on their feet and briefly lean outboard it does not seem like the end of the world to me, just instinctive reaction often not a conscious desire to gain an unfair advantage. Having said that clearly I will be more conscious of this in the future as it is a big deal for some.

#43 GybeSetŪ

GybeSetŪ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,187 posts
  • Location:the 'River of Light', Tomorrow-morrow Land

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:45 PM

have you read the OP

there were (quote) THREE or more at times

what is your analysis given this scenario

#44 HobieAnarchy

HobieAnarchy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,739 posts
  • Location:Imported from Detroit

Posted 21 November 2012 - 10:04 PM

Posted Image

'he's a witch! Burn him!

And for those of you contemplating a Rule 69 protest, you need to know that you (as a competitor) can't protest under rule 69. Only the Protest Committee can call a Rule 69 hearing. It's not a protest hearing. It's a Rule 69 hearing. There is a fundamental difference between a protest (that is against a boat) and a Rule 69 action (that is against a person).

What you can do is make a written report to the PC, who will then decide if action is warranted.

#45 WHL

WHL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,672 posts
  • Location:49-19.8N, 123-09.7W
  • Interests:Offshore, Star, Farr 30, R Boat racing, and gunkholing in classic daysailers

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:22 PM

The J105's were under class rules and in there they have defined "necessary task " . The leaning farter was clearly breaking class rules and was in no way preparing for a roll tack.

Bottom line is that there are too many ego filled hot shots that need to be protested as it seems they have no inherent conscience to play it by the book.

#46 Somebody Else

Somebody Else

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,836 posts
  • Location:Southern California
  • Interests:Shootings, just like HotRod!

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:42 PM


So standing like that guy in the farting/butt-sniffing position is illegal.

But how about this? This is OK, right?


Incorrect, it's exactly the same rule breach (x 6)


There's no slipping one past you, professor! :lol:

#47 sunseeker

sunseeker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,354 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:54 AM

The J105's were under class rules and in there they have defined "necessary task " . The leaning farter was clearly breaking class rules and was in no way preparing for a roll tack.

Bottom line is that there are too many ego filled hot shots that need to be protested as it seems they have no inherent conscience to play it by the book.


Allowing paid professionals to race in what used to be a regatta for amateur yachtsmen is like bringing hookers to the debutant ball.

Everyone will eventually get fucked, it just raises the price and speeds up the action a bit.

#48 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,703 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:42 AM

Haven't I seen this thread before? Even the picture looked vaguely familiar.

#49 shanghaisailor

shanghaisailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:18 AM

2 things here, one is the RRS and the other is class rules.

get the class rules out of the way first, different classes require different tightness of lifelines - it is a measurement issue BUT......

RRS are quite clear, torso inside the top lifeline, outside (for whatever reason other than temporarily fixiing a problem) is breaking the rule, knowing the rule and still doing it is cheating, telling someone to fuck off when you as a pro sailor - and therefore know you are cheating is verbal intimidation and Rule 2 violation at least.I would fully expect a pro-sportsman to know ALL the rules of the sport that he is paid to play.

A bit harsh perhaps but sailing is a self policing sport and as far as i am concerned cheating is cheating.

If you are pushing the rules and wobble the wrong side and have to do your turns or go to the room all well and good but when someone knowingly breaks the rule AND then verbally threatens the other person when complained against, especially using foul language to do so is unfair intimidation - that is a Rule 2 offence in my view, pure and simple
The fact that he is pro just means he is paid to do the sport and as such he should have even more respect for the medium that pays his wages. If he doesn't like it - well he should "fuck off" and play a sport where that abuse is more normal like soccer players to the referee or whatever.

Snapper you are not the idiot, Mark Reynolds is the idiot if, as a pro-sailor he doesn't know the rules or thinks he has any right to disregard them.

The swearing is not really an issue but using expletives in this context where someone is pulled up for knowingly breaking a rule is different. There is no difference between "I know I what i am doing" and i know what I am doing fuck off". Rule 69? A close call but a pro-sailor telling a leisure sailor to fuck off when that leisure sailor calls him out for a rule so obviously being broken can be seen as intimidation and would be up to the jury to decide if that competitor "comitted a gross breach of the rule", good manners or sportsmanship or perhaps even "brought the sport into disrepute".

Usual route would be protest under 49.1, in protest submission give the evidence that when you hailed the other boat you were told by a pro-sailor to 'fuck off' and mind your own business. If the other competitor continued their illegal hiking, that also goes in the submission and add that you felt that they were breaking Rule 2 by their response to your hail and then let the protest committee decide.

The protest committe may then, if they feel he was guilty of 49.1 and Rule 2 in such a way that warrants it, they may then call a hearing. Note though that a 69 hearing is against the individual and not the boat and is generally considered to be an extreme measure

As the great Paul Elvstrom famouly said (and I paraphrase) " If in winning the race you lose the respect of your fellow competitors you have not won at all".

I have umpired many events and where i see someone doing that (hiking incorrectly) I generally warn them between races (not my place to protest) but if someone requests a penalty based on the other boat illegally hiking I would give it, no other option - it breaks the rules.

Next time - take the picture but then take them to the room.

On the subject of pros on the same racecourse as the amateur? Well I actually think that is one of the cool things about sailing, I could club race this week and next week be on the same race course as an Olympic champion or just last month Michel Desjoyeaux.

If you want no pros just write the NoR to allow no Cat 3 sailors

See you on the water

SS

#50 NorCalLaser

NorCalLaser

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 789 posts
  • Location:Berkeley, California

Posted 22 November 2012 - 03:13 PM


The J105's were under class rules and in there they have defined "necessary task " . The leaning farter was clearly breaking class rules and was in no way preparing for a roll tack.

Bottom line is that there are too many ego filled hot shots that need to be protested as it seems they have no inherent conscience to play it by the book.


Allowing paid professionals to race in what used to be a regatta for amateur yachtsmen is like bringing hookers to the debutant ball.

Everyone will eventually get fucked, it just raises the price and speeds up the action a bit.

there it is right there folks... great line.
and far less tired than the elvstrom "respect" one, but i digress

#51 And 1

And 1

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 13 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 04:02 PM

Question for Snapper. Are you a pro?

#52 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,315 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:02 PM

Question for Snapper. Are you a pro?


too funny when a sockpuppet (nOOb or not) calls out a Real Person to Man-Up (more than once in a thread)

why not change to your Real name and enjoy the respect that should come from asking as yourself

reguardless of anything else Chris W. who we all know as Snapper has spoke as himself = Respect

#53 And 1

And 1

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 13 posts

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:03 PM

Woody...I think snap is a pro but wanted to confirm before saying anything. Not trying to provoke or call out in any way. My thought was that a previous poster was commenting about a pro intimidating a leisure sailor but in this case I was thinking it was two pros in conflict. If snap is a pro ( don't know that's why i asked) then I am sure that he would not be intimidated. The second thing that came to mind was that if snap did follow thru on a 69 hearing against Mark would that be the first time in history that a pro has initiated a hearing against another pro? The third thing was that right, wrong, or indifferent could you imagine if snap started the process and a jury agreed, forwarded it to authorities and Mark was suspended. That is heavy stuff. Even if he was in the right to do so and lets say for arguments sake that he is, could you imagine for the rest of your life of sailing people would not remember you for your sailing accomplishments but for being the guy that got Reynolds kicked out of sailing? We are talking Mark Reynolds man! Guy is Gold medalists legend that I always looked up to and thought of as a pretty good guy. Perhaps (and maybe Mark has a different take what happened) Mark made a mistake with the language but it would suck for a lifetime achiever to go down that way. We all have had our moments out there where we would like to take things back. Again snap did not initiate 69 and as i said before i am glad he didn't.

On another note it would be cool if the Lipton Cup did not allow any pros. Current format allows for 3 pros with an amateur helm. Not sure how SDYC came up with that number but if your gonna allow 3 pros on a J105 why even bother limiting it all? SDYC has put together a great event and I hope it continues to grow.

#54 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,315 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 22 November 2012 - 11:41 PM

Woody...I think snap is a pro but wanted to confirm before saying anything. Not trying to provoke or call out in any way. My thought was that a previous poster was commenting about a pro intimidating a leisure sailor but in this case I was thinking it was two pros in conflict. If snap is a pro ( don't know that's why i asked) then I am sure that he would not be intimidated. The second thing that came to mind was that if snap did follow thru on a 69 hearing against Mark would that be the first time in history that a pro has initiated a hearing against another pro? The third thing was that right, wrong, or indifferent could you imagine if snap started the process and a jury agreed, forwarded it to authorities and Mark was suspended. That is heavy stuff. Even if he was in the right to do so and lets say for arguments sake that he is, could you imagine for the rest of your life of sailing people would not remember you for your sailing accomplishments but for being the guy that got Reynolds kicked out of sailing? We are talking Mark Reynolds man! Guy is Gold medalists legend that I always looked up to and thought of as a pretty good guy. Perhaps (and maybe Mark has a different take what happened) Mark made a mistake with the language but it would suck for a lifetime achiever to go down that way. We all have had our moments out there where we would like to take things back. Again snap did not initiate 69 and as i said before i am glad he didn't.

On another note it would be cool if the Lipton Cup did not allow any pros. Current format allows for 3 pros with an amateur helm. Not sure how SDYC came up with that number but if your gonna allow 3 pros on a J105 why even bother limiting it all? SDYC has put together a great event and I hope it continues to grow.


??? ?.... I realize it's not the norm around here but I can't figure why people would not want to post as themselves

OK a Handel is fine but let it be known who you are and it's a better forum

a common thing about sockpupets is that they go through a forum like BAD Cyclist go through traffic

NO Matter the situation they have the right of way w No recorse

Running Red Lights, Stop Signs, Turning against traffic, On the Sidewalk or Blocking a lane of Traffic

All The While Demanding Respect


A sockpuppet thinks they are Judge, Jury and Score Keeper

they feel they keep a personal clean slate be being a sockpuppet

YET try to rack up Real Points against Real People while hiding behing a Sock

AND If that wern't enough

they pick and chose from what is said to the sockpuppet to take Personaly and Hold against the Real Person


And 1 ........ No matter what I Say to you and No matter what I call you in this forum - It's NOT to "You" the Real Person

If you have some Good Points to say Why wouldn't want to get the Credit for saying them

Are you a ventriloquist in your day to day life ??

Stand up and be counted - Speak as Your-Self the Real Person If ya gut sumpin to say



AS for the comment of Rules and Celebrity

IF It's A Rule - It's A RULE and till it's changed it must be followed By EVERYONE = EVERYONE

The Premis of Sail Racing At It's Higest Level is that a Competitor would Call Them-Selves on an Infraction Commited

REGUARDLESS of Anyone Else Possibly Seeing or The Caliber of the Event or The Consequences there of


As for commenting on what actually happened on the Water that day ??????????

I Don't Know

#55 And 1

And 1

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 13 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 02:38 AM

woody....you make several incorrect assumptions. To begin with you think I am attacking Snap on two different fronts and come running in to express your opinion. you say " too funny when a sockpuppet (nOOb or not) calls out a Real Person to Man-Up (more than once in a thread)" So let me clear that one up. I expressed an opinion (not fact) that when someone files a 69 for foul language that i lose respect for that person filing. I go on to support that opinion by stating that foul language is prevalent in our sport (ever heard swear like a sailor) and it can be unfair to protest someone for foul language when many people in our sport have sworn at one time or another and not been protested. In fact there are very few who of us that have been in this sport a long time like Mark R who have not at one time or another had an exchange that involved foul language. SNAP DID NOT FILE AND I SAID I WAS HAPPY HE DIDN'T! No attacking of character there. Secondly I wanted to mention if there was ever another time a pro filed 69 against another pro but wanted to confirm snap was a pro before saying it. So shouldn't be a problem there either. Not sure if you view me as a """ bad cyclist going thru traffic" or if you are making a general statement about everyone who does not list their name in the forums. While people hiding behind a sign in name has its drawbacks I don't think SA fourms would be as successful if it required everyone to post their real name. So take the good with the bad. Lastly and not sure if this was directed at me or all us sockpuppets but nowhere have I asked or demanded respect. I Just posted an opinion on a topic which I thought was the whole purpose of SA forums.

#56 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,315 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 23 November 2012 - 03:18 AM

woody....you make several incorrect assumptions. To begin with you think my sockpuppet is attacking Snap on two different fronts and come running in to express your opinion. you say " too funny when a sockpuppet (nOOb or not) calls out a Real Person to Man-Up (more than once in a thread)" So let my sockpuppet clear that one up. my sockpuppet expressed an opinion (not fact) that when someone files a 69 for foul language that my sockpuppet lose respect for that person filing. my sockpuppet go on to support that opinion by stating that foul language is prevalent in our sport (ever heard swear like a sailor) and it can be unfair to protest someone for foul language when many people in our sport have sworn at one time or another and not been protested. In fact there are very few who of us that have been in this sport a long time like Mark R who have not at one time or another had an exchange that involved foul language. SNAP DID NOT FILE AND my sockpuppet SAID my sockpuppet WAS HAPPY HE DIDN'T! No attacking of character there. Secondly my sockpuppet wanted to mention if there was ever another time a pro filed 69 against another pro but wanted to confirm snap was a pro before saying it. So shouldn't be a problem there either. Not sure if you view my sockpuppet as a """ bad cyclist going thru traffic" or if you are making a general statement about everyone who does not list their name in the forums. While people hiding behind a sign in name has its drawbacks my sockpuppet don't think SA fourms would be as successful if it required everyone to post their real name. So take the good with the bad. Lastly and not sure if this was directed at my sockpuppet or all us sockpuppets but nowhere have my sockpuppet asked or demanded respect. my sockpuppet Just posted an opinion on a topic which my sockpuppet thought was the whole purpose of SA forums.


fixed

and Yes ALL sockpuppets get lumped togeather with No posibility of positive points being awarded

Negitive Points Against the Real Person can only be considered a Cowardly win at best (and then only by the one hiding)


However should you ever care to step out if character and express how YOU feel ..............

Anyone who holds a Cat 3 to a Higher Standerd should likewise Lump sockpuppets ...... All in the same lump

I'm NOT Calling "YOU" A Lump - I'm inviting you to have "YOUR" thoughts be known as such


OH Pooh I forgot to log in as Whinnie

Posted Image

#57 shanghaisailor

shanghaisailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:35 AM

"Bad" language is used all over the race course, in fact I have often joked to non-sailing friends that if they want to write the definitive reference on "bad" language hang out near a turning mark on a sailboat race course, or even better get in the way of a race boat.

What is inexcusable, in my view however is when someone is pulled up for knowingly breaking a rule - and i am assuming a pro-sailor knows the "torso in" rule - and responds with verbage that is threatening or derogatory in either tone or content - and it doesn't matter who he is.

BUT..... It is difficult, if not impossible, to say who was right or wrong without knowing context, seeing the go-pro etc etc which is why you should always go to the room and let the protest committee sort it out.

It is kind of our duty to do so as sailing is a self policing sport and to go to the room keeps everone honest (well at least more honest) and for less experienced sailors who perhaps have "just made a mistake" it will help them learn and make the race course a safer place.

I had a similar instance where we had to crash tack to avoid a port tacker. We put up the flag and shouted protest (both virtually immediately) then as the race progressed decided that it wasn't worth it and they were in a different division - you know, the usual can't be bothered type thoughts - and we took the flag down and didn't proceed.

So you can imagine my dismay when the next morning on sail-world.com/asia the journalist who was on the crew of the other boat slagged off our boat for barging when we were close hauled on starboard 50 feet from the committee boat - going fast but going fast on starboard not interfering with any boat to your lee is not barging. He also forgot to mention that the boat he was on was on port tack and appeared from behind the genoa of a boat to our lee.

If we had left the flag up and gone to the room we and our witnesses (which included the PRO who told me at the after race party he was "waiting for the bang") could have told what was our perception of the incident. In other words we would have had an undeniable right to reply instead of this turkey sounding off on a web site (contavening Rule 3 along the way by the way) giving only one side - and a twisted side - of the story.

More fool me for not taking them to the room. Sailing is a self policing sport and it is up to the aggrieved competitor to take the other party to the room.

As was said a few posts back, RULES are RULES and apply to everyone, use them to the limit but not one inch more, Olympic champions, newbies, the whole lot of us - no exceptions and ignorance of the rules is no excuse when you break one.

See ya on the water

SS

#58 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 03:23 PM

"Bad" language is used all over the race course, in fact I have often joked to non-sailing friends that if they want to write the definitive reference on "bad" language hang out near a turning mark on a sailboat race course, or even better get in the way of a race boat.

What is inexcusable, in my view however is when someone is pulled up for knowingly breaking a rule - and i am assuming a pro-sailor knows the "torso in" rule - and responds with verbage that is threatening or derogatory in either tone or content - and it doesn't matter who he is.

BUT..... It is difficult, if not impossible, to say who was right or wrong without knowing context, seeing the go-pro etc etc which is why you should always go to the room and let the protest committee sort it out.

It is kind of our duty to do so as sailing is a self policing sport and to go to the room keeps everone honest (well at least more honest) and for less experienced sailors who perhaps have "just made a mistake" it will help them learn and make the race course a safer place.

I had a similar instance where we had to crash tack to avoid a port tacker. We put up the flag and shouted protest (both virtually immediately) then as the race progressed decided that it wasn't worth it and they were in a different division - you know, the usual can't be bothered type thoughts - and we took the flag down and didn't proceed.

So you can imagine my dismay when the next morning on sail-world.com/asia the journalist who was on the crew of the other boat slagged off our boat for barging when we were close hauled on starboard 50 feet from the committee boat - going fast but going fast on starboard not interfering with any boat to your lee is not barging. He also forgot to mention that the boat he was on was on port tack and appeared from behind the genoa of a boat to our lee.

If we had left the flag up and gone to the room we and our witnesses (which included the PRO who told me at the after race party he was "waiting for the bang") could have told what was our perception of the incident. In other words we would have had an undeniable right to reply instead of this turkey sounding off on a web site (contavening Rule 3 along the way by the way) giving only one side - and a twisted side - of the story.

More fool me for not taking them to the room. Sailing is a self policing sport and it is up to the aggrieved competitor to take the other party to the room.

As was said a few posts back, RULES are RULES and apply to everyone, use them to the limit but not one inch more, Olympic champions, newbies, the whole lot of us - no exceptions and ignorance of the rules is no excuse when you break one.

See ya on the water

SS


Zzzzzzz! Nice way to crowbar your 'already exhausted' thread topic into someone else's thread... But it doesn't fit! This topic is about whether the dude leaning over was wrong, and the intricacies of rule 49.

By the way, how does an online article break rule 3?

Back to the topic.

1. The 'bad' in the phrase 'bad language' is essentially down to the tribe to define. No use discussing that here, since context applies and personal thresholds are different among us.

2. The dude hanging over was breaking rule 49. Whether or not class rule. Weight shift to facilitate rolling, although allowed, is not necessary.


Dw

#59 shanghaisailor

shanghaisailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 05:52 AM

No intention to "leverage", just another example of people "Not playing by the rules". I apologise if mentionof the previous incident/thread gave that impression

The rules are there to make sailing "fair" and "safe".

The principle of Rule 2 is that you play fair and in the case on this thread the rule breaker should have put their hand up and said oops, sorry or whatever and corrected their actions not, as claimed, refuse to do so and not to use, as claimed, abusive language while doing so.

The principle of Rule 3 (and this is not just my opinion but of International Judges I took counsel from) is that if you are unhapy with another boat's actions you either protest or not - end of matter, you do not start a whispering campaign or abuse one's position as a website editor who is also a competitor to vilify another boat giving no right to reply.

Is this a growing trend in our sport where, rather than 'play strictly by the rules', people are rather more willing to use their reputation and/or position to get away with things that are not within the spirit, nor the letter, of the rules?

If so our sport should be concerned and come down harder on people that should know better.

Perhaps, no not just perhaps, both Snapper and myself are, at least, partly to blame. Sailing is a self policing sport and we should both have protested the other boat for the incident and if the other boat is DSQ'd and pissed at us - tough shit, it was them that broke the rule or, if we lose the protest, at least we know we have had a fair hearing.

These two are sadly not isolated incidents - earlier this year I know of a competitor who, after being flagged for an incident where 6 of 6 witnesses apportioned blame to him went on Weibo and rubbished the race officials coz he lost. Perhaps it is a sign of moving to a 'win at all costs' mentality, I don't know? but certainly not good for the sport. It;s supposed to be fun for god's sake.

Have any other Anarchists had this impression?

Certainly in future where someone clearly fouls me, the flag is going up AND staying up. A few easy DSQ's might just bring some of these people back into line - or improve our own knowledge along the way.

By the way ISAF Case 36 should prove that Snapper was completely within his rights is the guy in the photograph was in that position other than temporarily.

Let's keen sailing clean.

See ya on the water

SS


#60 Ballast Technician

Ballast Technician

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 06:34 AM

Zzzzzzz! Nice way to crowbar your 'already exhausted' thread topic into someone else's thread... But it doesn't fit! This topic is about whether the dude leaning over was wrong, and the intricacies of rule 49.

By the way, how does an online article break rule 3?

Back to the topic.

1. The 'bad' in the phrase 'bad language' is essentially down to the tribe to define. No use discussing that here, since context applies and personal thresholds are different among us.

2. The dude hanging over was breaking rule 49. Whether or not class rule. Weight shift to facilitate rolling, although allowed, is not necessary.


Dw


Please do not quote ShanghaiSailor, as it gets around his well deserved placement on my Ignore list.

#61 shanghaisailor

shanghaisailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:47 AM

What's your problem Ballast Technician, don't you know where the scroll down key is?

#62 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 02:26 PM

SS,

I think we all agree with what you are asserting..."if you're not happy and you don't protest, you've only yourself to blame!"

I don't think complaining on an internet forum about another sailor is anywhere near a breach of rule 3. Rule 3 says you accept the rules, the decisions against you by the rules, and accept that courts and other legal systems won't be used to resolve a dispute of the RRS.

Rule 3 says nothing about freedom of speech. I'm surprised you got that wrong advice from your chummy IJs.

And are you really that different? Hell, not much different to writing an article in Sail-World Mag to writing a post in SA Forums...me thinks.

As for the 'crowbar into this thread', well what you mean is not always what shows, right?

Summary: If you don't like something, protest it. Mouthing off in writing outside the sport may be cowardly or childish, at most. It certainly doesn't break rule 3. Counter mouthing-off in an online forum, is seen by many as equally childish and turns people like Ballast Technician off. The guy in the picture was breaking rules, and should have been protested.

There!

G'night.

DW

#63 atwinda

atwinda

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 499 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 04:50 PM

Reason #5,397,931 not to sail on j105.

And whoever it was that said going out on an irc sprit is a violation can go kick rocks.

#64 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,315 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 30 November 2012 - 08:28 AM

Hay this thread kant dye till DoRag get's to the Bottom of it :o

OK for all those wound up in the frackuss

Who Won the 2000 Lipton CUP (Club / Skipper) and in what Ride ?????

Win Sumpin off Solo's Desk ;)

#65 slater-san

slater-san

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 814 posts

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:00 PM

I'd guess DC for SDYC, sailing the revamped Schock 35 Buttercup (probably renamed Menace #something)

#66 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,315 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:16 PM

I'd guess DC for SDYC, sailing the revamped Schock 35 Buttercup (probably renamed Menace #something)


Schock 35 / HOTSPUR with our own Lovable Keith Lorence :rolleyes:

+ if ya wanna see sum PIX from this year Shot from Above

#67 Christian

Christian

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,110 posts
  • Location:Hopefully on the water

Posted 30 November 2012 - 11:15 PM

agree, I think what is missing is how long the crew was holding that position and to what effect. clearly not roll tacking, does seem to be looking upcourse, would not like to see any momentary transgression of leaning or swearing becomes grounds for banning in this sport. I have been guilty of unknowingly leaning outboard and was notified on the water of it by a friend on a competing boat in a pleasant way (coincidentally a friend and assoc. of MR, both of them nice guys IMHO). I had noroblem with him saying it and stopped doing it. yes, leaning out in a roll tack in a small light boat helps, yes it is against the rules, but if it is shifty and 1-2 crew are on their feet and briefly lean outboard it does not seem like the end of the world to me, just instinctive reaction often not a conscious desire to gain an unfair advantage. Having said that clearly I will be more conscious of this in the future as it is a big deal for some.


It doesn't matter whether an infraction is intentional or not - it is still breaking the rules and one should take ones lumps if/when it happens. It is a very slippery slope to get into this - it wasn't intentional, it didn't really matter in terms of the outcome of the race, nobody protested me, etc, etc

#68 Dog Watch

Dog Watch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,282 posts

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:01 AM


agree, I think what is missing is how long the crew was holding that position and to what effect. clearly not roll tacking, does seem to be looking upcourse, would not like to see any momentary transgression of leaning or swearing becomes grounds for banning in this sport. I have been guilty of unknowingly leaning outboard and was notified on the water of it by a friend on a competing boat in a pleasant way (coincidentally a friend and assoc. of MR, both of them nice guys IMHO). I had noroblem with him saying it and stopped doing it. yes, leaning out in a roll tack in a small light boat helps, yes it is against the rules, but if it is shifty and 1-2 crew are on their feet and briefly lean outboard it does not seem like the end of the world to me, just instinctive reaction often not a conscious desire to gain an unfair advantage. Having said that clearly I will be more conscious of this in the future as it is a big deal for some.


It doesn't matter whether an infraction is intentional or not - it is still breaking the rules and one should take ones lumps if/when it happens. It is a very slippery slope to get into this - it wasn't intentional, it didn't really matter in terms of the outcome of the race, nobody protested me, etc, etc

+1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users