Jump to content

Dog Watch

Members
  • Content Count

    1,469
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Suckup

About Dog Watch

  • Rank
    Super Anarchist

Recent Profile Visitors

5,550 profile views
  1. Just listened to the interview. Quick question.. If the 'Alternate Finish' had been actually longer, say 13 miles longer (619nm, just in a safer location for the boats), would the same complaint be made? Isn't the fact that the course was 13 miles 'shorter' just a coincidence which is being used as the crutch ("it was a shortened course") for this argument? DW
  2. There are two kinds of shortened course. Ones which are signalled (S flag and sound signals) and ones which are not! That's a perfectly valid interpretation of the first line of RRS32.2. SeQuBe discusses the 'letter and spirit' of a rule. I think his discussion actually takes this whole debate to a very high level. He is drives at a well known legal process known as 'Statutory Interpretation'. However that discussion is possibly too high for this case! I do draw on one paragraph from SeQuBe's post. Here SeQuBe recognises the problem with any kind of signalling and ho
  3. Wow. Has anyone suggested the race should be abandoned? I hope not. That would be unnecessary and unsatisfactory. As for your analysis of errors (in your opinion), often mistakes are made. Often they are not crucial or critical. Often they can be fixed or made 'fair'. So the fact that mates you sent your analysis 'agree' with you, isn't remarkable really. I stand by my opposite stance that: 1. The SI was OK. The SI did not rely on, contradict or change RRS32 (see explanation above.) 2. The decision to use the SI was fine. Even after boats had finished.
  4. Seriously! Don't put words into my mouth. Clearly your last paragraph is different to what we have here. My posts clearly recognise the problem here. I just don't think it is related to the issue that Sunrise was celebrating her win before the 'alternative line' was invoked. Had all the results stayed the same, this issue wouldn't have been brought up as anything other than.. 'we had better fix that for next year'. If one boat had sailed the course and all the others did not, then sure.. then sure, if the jury did not find any grounds for redress, they may have to DSQ all the othe
  5. Actually, that wasn't belatedly brushed past. In my first draft it was in my first sentence. I moved it to the end because it is a rather minor point. No one sailed the correct course, but everyone sailed as fast as they could to the 'alternate line'. So, let the results stand, and tidy up the SI for next year. I really don't know how that is critical to this situation. Please explain.
  6. In my opinion there was nothing wrong with the SI, Race Officer's actions or the jury decision*. The problem is that Sunrise has been given (or followed) some poor advice from some outspoken and emotionally charged commentators! Sorry to all those who have spent hours arguing that the SI was wrong etc... Time to move along. Look, in the absence of SI11.3, if faced with the same weather circumstances, the RO would have no option but to abandon the race. Ensuring the safety of the last few boats far outweighs the hopes and dreams of the boats already tucked up in the pens. But
  7. LOL! Fine. I really don't have a beef with you.. at least not enough get at all emotional as you clearly are. Don't care about your episode. Certainly no vested interest. Do care to balance the thread, maybe help those who are open to other points of view consider other points of view. Back to the original discussion then....
  8. Actually, that's pretty irrelevant. LB, you know its impossible for any of us (who know weren't there) to comment/agree/disagree with your gripe. We weren't there. Whatever happened to you, happened. Rightly or wrongly. Frankly, I/we don't care. Look, another fact of life is that people know each other in sailing. The smaller the sailing community, the more likely it is that the protest committee has some kind of connection with a party or both parties. Sorry! Once again, the rules make as much allowance for this as possible, by clearly defining what kinds of associati
  9. A US court case in 1995 found otherwise: Furthermore, the procedures established by the IYRR meet the requirements of due process:  there is appropriate written notification of the allegations, notice is given of the hearing;  the parties are allowed to appear and present evidence and witness testimony;  they may also cross-examine opposing witnesses and argue orally;  and generally, engage in all those accepted activities held so dear by common law lawyers.   Finally, a written decision, in which findings of fact are made and fault apportioned, is issued to all interested parties.   Equa
  10. Interesting thread. Disappointing, but not new. OK - https://www.sailingworld.com/how-to/what-you-can-do-after-you-lose-protest/ An old but pertinent article by Dick Rose. In addition to the list started by Brass, I'll add a real statistic. People lose protest hearings simply because the committee got it wrong. Not because they were eager to get to the bar. Not because, they had bias or were lenient towards one boat, or decided to skip procedure. Not for any of the reasons presented by Jackdaw or the others. Two reasons: 1. There is not enough evidence presented
×
×
  • Create New...