Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Spoonie

  1. I see the problem, they failed to tow it beyond the environment...
  2. To be fair, Im pretty sure other sports do or have done the same thing. From recollection, Cricket were found to include anyone who they had deemed had held a bat, so primary school kids in their PE class. On the licensing thing, cycling have a day pass to race. I think it's like $15.
  3. If RQYS is not incorporated, I would be very surprised. A quick search shows: Royal Queensland Yacht Squadron Limited (public company) R.Q.Y.S Marina Limited RQYS Motel PTY Limited ROYAL QUEENSLAND YACHT SQUADRON JOHN HARRISON OLYMPIC SUPPORT FOUNDATION PTY LTD Each of those has a discretionary trading trust associated with it for the associated assets. So there's 8 entities. RQYS has a bunch of trading names including for a historical wooden boat show or something. They're not technically entities but... yeah. I'm guessing the members sit under the first one.
  4. Is it a simple business? It has a marina, a bar/restraunt, a sailing school, a hotel now right? Etc... lots of businesses break themselves into lots of different entities to protect the assets and liabilities of one from the other. Until recently, i know of at least one other club who ran all their functions under seperate entities so as to keep revenue and salaries of each entity under relevant tax and employment thresholds. I think the Tax dept clamped down on that. putting the members in a seperate entity is smart business sense in that a member that sues the club probably doesn
  5. 16.1 still applies. If S changes course such that P can't respond, then S gets dinged. Doesn't matter which way S changes course in that context. you're more likely to pull it off on a heavy yacht than a dingy. Pinching a dingy is death It would have to be a big fakey... you dive down so that it looks like P will cross, then come up again. To what aim though? Other than so S can tag P on the way through that is. You'd have to get the timing just right in order for P to panic and chuck a tack in if that is your aim. It might make sense if your aim is to control P all the way
  6. I'm not sure it is. To start with, 16.1 and 14 put a lot of onus on right of way boats to not do anything stupid. If you are able to change course to hit someone, you are able to change course to avoid hitting someone. With that in mind, a right of way boat needs to think about what they are doing before change course at all. 16.2 extends that in a specific scenario. But you need to think about how the rule would be applied in a tactical sense. When sailing up wind, a starboard tack boat wants to influence the tack or cross for purposes of control. Bearing away can force another to
  7. Yeah, so what mark-room in Eye's example is she entitled? is she entitled so sail to the non-required side then luff hard? Based on all the discussions we've had, I'd say the answer is no. Otherwise there's a double standard. Why would it be ok for an inside boat to luff hard to round the mark, but it's not ok for an outside boat to "luff" the inside boat? But I've taken a bit of a beating here in the last couple of days :/ (which I'm thankful for, just ... you know... )
  8. As per case 118, mark-room dosen't include room to sail to the non-required side of the mark. By choosing to sail from above the lay line to below it, she is sailing outside the mark-room she is entitled. Yeah? Or am I about to get slapped by @Mambo Kings again? S protests on 11, 14 and 18.3 P protests on 14,16.1 and maybe 15, 17 But in choosing to sail below the required side of the mark S is sailing outside of the room she is entitled, and so is not exhonerated under 43.1(b) S gets tossed? But by your questions, it sounded like P got tossed?
  9. Looks very similar to case 93: L was dinged for breaking 15 and 16.1
  10. Maybe, but she is still required to act promptly and in a seamanlike manner. a "Crazy Ivan" is not a seamanlike action and so is outside of that definition.
  11. On the origional question, I just had a thought out on my walk... If we stick to the mark-room bit of "space they need to sail the course in a seaman like way" regardless of the need for the bear away, I wonder if the nature of the bear away would then impact things. CASE 93: If a boat luffs immediately after she becomes overlapped to leeward of another boat and there is no seamanlike action that would enable the other boat to keep clear, the boat that luffs breaks rules 15 and 16.1. The other boat breaks rule 11, but is exonerated. If a boat with mark-room is being provided i
  12. Where it gets tricky is in a lull, what one boat perceives as a pressure header another will perceive as a severe actual header. To which I ask, just because a boat feels they need to do something, is that the same as them actually needing to? Even if it was a severe header, did W *need* to bear away. In the absence of other evidence the fact L held their course then tacked would suggest no...
  13. W hit L before prior to tacking, then again when tacking. If it was just the room to tack part I would agree L gets flicked.
  14. Well there is two clear interpretations here. One that suggests RoW boat controls the shots, and another which suggests Mark room boat does. I'm with John and TJ on this one. At a mark surrounded by navigable water, the onus should be on the give way boat to prove by not keeping clear, they would not have made the mark. Given there is no proper course in mark room, I'm not convinced chc is a factor.
  15. That's a really good point. But as someone said above, "promptly" or what is the most optimal response to a sudden change in pressure/direction is open to interpretation. In this case, L clearly thought the best option was to hold her course. In the absence of W, she may have been proven right. I mean, it's a fairly standard tactic, especially if you have momentum in your favour. A yacht can carry on for a couple of lengths to windward with the sails flogging. If you think the pressure/direction change is only temporary, and you're close to tacking anyway, holding course probably giv
  16. Yeah I clarified that above. Both boats sailed into a lull. How much was a change of actual direction and how much was just a "pressure header" we'll never know. "Light and variable winds" . They're yachts. They have x tonnes of momentum. Put yourself in those shoes, the default reaction of most people is to pull hard on the helm and not think about what's below you.
  17. Yep, agreed. But then, without the bear away, L was providing room to W, so it would be moot.
  18. What mambo kings is saying (and I do truly appreciate what he is saying by the way, I'm not just arguing for the sake of it) is that if L is forcing W above close hauled, then she is not giving W room to sail to the mark. Which I get, I just disagree. If nothing else, W could have done any number of things to keep clear and still sail to the mark in a seamanlike way.
  19. She must also keep clear of L under rule 11. "Sail the course" says nothing about proper course, or chc. so long as L doesn't do anything which forces W to perform some kind of miracle act, she has provided room.
  20. I really get what you're saying, I just disagree. Where is the interpretation or ruling that says this... because every other interpretation says "direct to the mark" But less say you're right. Mark room doesn't include proper course. It's room to sail in a seamanlike way. where is luffing excluded from sailing in a seaman like way?
  21. But in that Case (25), IW's proper course was to sail close to the mark. They were on a beam reach. He did not sail to some position away from the mark, and then tack. Similar circumstance in Case 118. In both cases, both inside boats were obliged to sail directly to the mark. Case 118 UM8 was deemed to have sailed to the mark "In this case, UM8 had sailed to the mark at position 3 in the diagram because the mark was abeam of her bow and she was close to the mark" Close is close. If you can't reach out and touch it, that's not close. On the original case in question,
  22. No.. The proper course was to sail to some position away from the mark, and then tack. If they were both laying the mark, I would agree, but they're not.
  23. I mean, I don't know if I agree on the sail to the mark bit (unless there's a ruling on that? Case 118 is the closest), but let's take that for the moment. I don't think the why W bore away matters... W would have to prove that in pinching or whatever, she would not be able to sail to the layline. Pinching/luffing is still counted as seamanlike manoeuvring CASE 103: The phrase ‘seamanlike way’ in the definition Room refers to boat-handling that can reasonably be expected from a competent, but not expert, crew of the appropriate number for the boat. It is reasonable to ex
  24. Provided in doing so she doesn't break a rule of part 2 sure.
  • Create New...