Jump to content

dtoc

Members
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by dtoc

  1. It appears we do not have consensus on what defines having COVID managed well enough to have a large multi-national event.  Not that there is ever consensus for anything in this forum.:o

    On 5/26/2021 at 8:45 AM, stealingisacrime said:

    Sailing is the summer olympics version of curling, so who really gives a shit.

    The US team sucks because US sailings approach to Jr Sailing blows - so we end up with a team of petulant little rich kids and moneyless tagalongs.

    2 strikes.

     

    On 5/26/2021 at 4:16 AM, Dave S said:

    Ed's argument seems to be that because:

    1. A US Government body has issued a travel advisory warning Americans against travelling to Japan...

    2. The US Olympic sailing team isn't doing too well...

    ... the IOC should cancel the Olympics.

    Eh? Really?

    There are lots of good arguments for and against allowing the Games to go ahead, but don't the other 200 or so countries get a say?

    I do however believe that some of the US teams are actually very competitive and medal contenders.  Women's 49erFX - Bronze 2020 Worlds, Men's 470, Laser, Laser Radial all strong.

  2. Ed posted a piece suggesting that the 2021 Olympics should be cancelled due to "high" covid case rates in Japan.

    Japan has managed Covid so well that a small increase suddenly is creating an outsized response.

    California only got below the per capita rate of Japan's spike last week but has long been considered as being "ready to open".  The CA spike was about 22 times higher (2200%) of the highest Japanese spike.

    Is Covid really an issue in Japan for vaccinated Olympians or is something else at play here?

  3. 1 minute ago, mccroc said:

    I would appeal. An appeal is only considered on the basis of the Facts found - and this case they are very straight ahead that B347 broke Rule 10.

    It sets an awful precedent if upheld as a fair result.

    I totally disagree with any posters above who seem to think that it's only a little nuisance. This is a major, if not THE major rule in the RRS. If we say, oh that one doesn't matter, then where do we draw the line? 

    If it was as blatant as it seems, B347 is lucky they weren't score DNE, as they broke Rule 2 by not taking a penalty.

    Unfortunately however the time for an appeal may have already passed.

    That is extreme.  There is no basis to say that because someone didn't do turns that they violated Rule 2 Fair Sailing.  This happens all of the time and very likely B347 didn't feel that an alteration was needed / they kept clear.

    I'm not saying that it was "only a little nuisance" but to get to Rule 2 the violation has to be much greater and intentional with the possibility of getting witnesses to falsify their statements.

    Anyway, the impact to 9930 is very unlikely to be corrected.  It is a very high bar to get redress from a foul where you can keep sailing.

    30% per NoR/SI based on arbitration level and move on.  This was not the Etchells Worlds or Olympics qualifier.  It was a regional fun regatta under handicap just after long COVID "pauses"

  4. 49 minutes ago, jackattack said:

    Reading the protest outcome it appears the Arbitration penalty was applied to Race 5. (SI 10 & RRS Appendix T). I read this to be a 30% scoring penalty

    What was not clear in the original post is whether B347 was willing to accept the arbitration penalty.  If so, then there is more sense in the Jury just deciding that the 30% is the right penalty to apply.  The 4 points wasn't an arbitrary number that just kept the boat having 1st place.

  5. So with the penalty, B347 remained in 1st overall by 1 point but would have dropped to 7th with a DSQ.  You finished in 6th overall.

    B347 did pass astern, so other than a late alteration he did not benefit from the foul. (Interested to hear if you believe otherwise)

    Jury past judgement on your protest that even though he was technically wrong, it was not enough to take his trophy away. (Was it dangerous or was there never a doubt that the collision would be avoided?)

    I am of two minds as to whether it is a good amendment and ruling.

    No, I was not at the event and do not even sail in AUS.

    • Like 1
  6. Going into the gybe, the twing on the old sheet wasn't tightened.

    Trimmer let the clew go way to far forward, should be able to complete a gybe with the kite centerlined.

    No one tripped the pole.

    Driver error (as is always the case:D)

     

    BTW - If you have never done this, you're not pushing hard enough.  It's about not doing it twice in the same boat or with the same crew.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...