Jump to content

LR vs AR penalty


5X-MOANA

Recommended Posts

The penalty was a joke - this is the factual evidence - I was on the water listening to the radios:

 

1. whether Artemis were at fault is dubious at best

2. The umpires penalised Artemis 25 s before the start

3. It was supposed to be a VMG penalty

4. the umpire in the booth was not accustomed with the buttons so fucked up on pressing the buttons to indicate a vmg penalty

- Umpire Mike Martin who would normally press the buttons was awol (apparently with the band "red hot chilli powders " in a rib on the water)

5. The woman replacing Mike Martin in the booth fucked up by not knowing the button sequence - after pressing the SWE penalty button you then have to press either the VMG button (as in this case) or the boat on boat bot penalty button)

6. in a panic she pressed the SWE penalty button and then realised that nothing had happened so instead of pressing the VMG button pressed the SWE button again which completely cleared the penalty.

7. It was a total fuck up - the penalty was supposed to be a vmg penalty which would have penalised Artemis by approx. 2 boat lengths on the first reach - they started 4 boat lengths ahead of LR so should have still been leading at mark 1

8. the penalty was so late it was a joke and it was eventually signalled as a boat on boat penalty (due to it being signalled so late after the start), instead of a vmg penalty

9, Artemis were completely screwed by the umpires - and that's the way it is

10. When the umpires realised they had fucked up WHY didn't they just abandon the race at mark 1 and do a restart ??

10. Artemis could have protested the race afterwards but the honour of guys like percy and TT decided that it just wasn't worth it.

 

CONCLUSION: Umpire's you fucked up and deprived us of a possibly the best race so far, #pleasedon'tfuckupagain

 

#sailonbart

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's showing which boats are clear or in danger of receiving a penalty. When the boat is red it's in danger. At the point of contact LR was on starboard, AR was not so AR is penalised.

 

Watching the reply there are 2 questions however.

 

The penalty was shown to be on LR at first, but AR ended up taking it. Do the umpires not know how to use the penalty equipment?

 

2nd AR protested and then they get penalised. There was no indication that LR had protested, so how are AR penalised?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's showing which boats are clear or in danger of receiving a penalty. When the boat is red it's in danger. At the point of contact LR was on starboard, AR was not so AR is penalised.

 

Watching the reply there are 2 questions however.

 

The penalty was shown to be on LR at first, but AR ended up taking it. Do the umpires not know how to use the penalty equipment?

 

2nd AR protested and then they get penalised. There was no indication that LR had protested, so how are AR penalised?

Red/Green are tacks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's showing which boats are clear or in danger of receiving a penalty. When the boat is red it's in danger. At the point of contact LR was on starboard, AR was not so AR is penalised.

 

Colours show tacks. Hulls are highlighted when overlapped.

 

Swe is give way boat - either as windward, or as clear astern, or as port, from the moment she tacks. Question is about 16.1 and ITA giving room as she alters course. Difficult to judge without being there following the boats, and watching SWE's turn to port.

 

Interesting to see how little it brings to umpiring, really. Nice to have sharp, definitive answers about overlaps, (albeit an expensive way of doing it compared to observers onboard (*)). It's still mostly 15/16.1 judgements, I would guess.

 

*(yes, I understand why they would now not want observers onboard, and there is a 1 or 2 observer required question with cats)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Port/Starboard. LR had completed it's tack onto stbd. AR were still on port tack when contact was made.

RRS Rule 15:"When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear, unless she acquires right of way because of the other boat's actions."

 

Unrelated:

At 31 SWE completes her tack (TWA >50 degrees), why would ITA be allowed to tack back in front of them (ITA is head to wind and tacking at 34)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The penalty was a joke - this is the factual evidence - I was on the water listening to the radios:

 

1. whether Artemis were at fault is dubious at best

2. The umpires penalised Artemis 25 s before the start

3. It was supposed to be a VMG penalty

4. the umpire in the booth was not accustomed with the buttons so fucked up on pressing the buttons to indicate a vmg penalty

- Umpire Mike Martin who would normally press the buttons was awol (apparently with the band "red hot chilli powders " in a rib on the water)

5. The woman replacing Mike Martin in the booth fucked up by not knowing the button sequence - after pressing the SWE penalty button you then have to press either the VMG button (as in this case) or the boat on boat bot penalty button)

6. in a panic she pressed the SWE penalty button and then realised that nothing had happened so instead of pressing the VMG button pressed the SWE button again which completely cleared the penalty.

7. It was a total fuck up - the penalty was supposed to be a vmg penalty which would have penalised Artemis by approx. 2 boat lengths on the first reach - they started 4 boat lengths ahead of LR so should have still been leading at mark 1

8. the penalty was so late it was a joke and it was eventually signalled as a boat on boat penalty (due to it being signalled so late after the start), instead of a vmg penalty

9, Artemis were completely screwed by the umpires - and that's the way it is

10. When the umpires realised they had fucked up WHY didn't they just abandon the race at mark 1 and do a restart ??

10. Artemis could have protested the race afterwards but the honour of guys like percy and TT decided that it just wasn't worth it.

 

CONCLUSION: Umpire's you fucked up and deprived us of a possibly the best race so far, #pleasedon'tfuckupagain

 

#sailonbart

 

Interesting.

 

So the call for a penalty against Artemis for failing to give way was correct.

 

It should have been signalled as a VMG (speed made good to windward) penalty which would have resulted in an instant slow down by Artemis, conceding two boat lengths. And while she was very slow and bearing off from her head-to-wind position.

 

Instead, you tell us, because of the screwup the penalty was signalled after the boats rounded Mark One as a BoB (boat on boat) penalty, again requiring Artemis to drop back. Perhaps someone can tell us by how much.

 

If you're right, and I have no reason to doubt you in the absence of contrary or confirmatory evidence, Artemis got pinged although belatedly, due to sloppy RC work.

 

Not a federal case, I'd say. A technical error but not one that changed the course of events (no pun). Artemis still got round the mark first and a few seconds faster than they would have otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably IM and co will forget all about 45 gate now and run a boot camp for officials.Yeah right.

AR team might volunteer for on water experience? or I can be there in 24? Might have to postpone lotto win. Any ophers?

K

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The penalty was a joke - this is the factual evidence - I was on the water listening to the radios:

 

1. whether Artemis were at fault is dubious at best

2. The umpires penalised Artemis 25 s before the start

3. It was supposed to be a VMG penalty

4. the umpire in the booth was not accustomed with the buttons so fucked up on pressing the buttons to indicate a vmg penalty

- Umpire Mike Martin who would normally press the buttons was awol (apparently with the band "red hot chilli powders " in a rib on the water)

5. The woman replacing Mike Martin in the booth fucked up by not knowing the button sequence - after pressing the SWE penalty button you then have to press either the VMG button (as in this case) or the boat on boat bot penalty button)

6. in a panic she pressed the SWE penalty button and then realised that nothing had happened so instead of pressing the VMG button pressed the SWE button again which completely cleared the penalty.

7. It was a total fuck up - the penalty was supposed to be a vmg penalty which would have penalised Artemis by approx. 2 boat lengths on the first reach - they started 4 boat lengths ahead of LR so should have still been leading at mark 1

8. the penalty was so late it was a joke and it was eventually signalled as a boat on boat penalty (due to it being signalled so late after the start), instead of a vmg penalty

9, Artemis were completely screwed by the umpires - and that's the way it is

10. When the umpires realised they had fucked up WHY didn't they just abandon the race at mark 1 and do a restart ??

10. Artemis could have protested the race afterwards but the honour of guys like percy and TT decided that it just wasn't worth it.

 

CONCLUSION: Umpire's you fucked up and deprived us of a possibly the best race so far, #pleasedon'tfuckupagain

 

#sailonbart

 

Interesting.

 

So the call for a penalty against Artemis for failing to give way was correct.

 

It should have been signalled as a VMG (speed made good to windward) penalty which would have resulted in an instant slow down by Artemis, conceding two boat lengths. And while she was very slow and bearing off from her head-to-wind position.

 

Instead, you tell us, because of the screwup the penalty was signalled after the boats rounded Mark One as a BoB (boat on boat) penalty, again requiring Artemis to drop back. Perhaps someone can tell us by how much.

 

If you're right, and I have no reason to doubt you in the absence of contrary or confirmatory evidence, Artemis got pinged although belatedly, due to sloppy RC work.

 

Not a federal case, I'd say. A technical error but not one that changed the course of events (no pun). Artemis still got round the mark first and a few seconds faster than they would have otherwise.

Official obviously was given the LEAD finger!

K

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been racing 30 years and my head s

What are we looking at here? Is that somehow produced in realtime to help the umpires or produced later to explain the decision?

 

As for what happened and the rules interpretations, my head hurts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction, I did not see the wind direction indicator at the top left.

It seems to show that ITA may not have tacked back (initially) but simply luffed head to wind, which is their right as leeward yacht as long as 16.1 is met...

Times I referenced in last post are from the top of the replay, not the clip runtime.

 

Clip is from "Umpire Booth Replays":

http://noticeboard.americascup.com/umpire/umpire-booth-replays/

Link to post
Share on other sites

In BoatingNZ magazine a few months ago, there was an article called the Umpires strike back. It explained how the calls are being made and what info is available.

 

If you look on the AC site, you can find spreadsheets from both boats and all official boats showing all sorts of data incuding radio traffic. One of those pieces of data is rudder angle. This is only available to the umpires and not other teams. From that they are able to determine the state of the helm of both boats in real time. There is a shit load of other stuff and is quite interesting to open and look at.

 

Clip is from "Umpire Booth Replays":

http://noticeboard.a...-booth-replays/

I think you will find the arrow from the mast is the rudder angle and if that is the case then AR was still turning right at the contact.
Thanks SL33 SF

 

Just remember err is human, if you really want to fuck up, use a computer.

 

Sad for AR, would love to have seen them get one race at least. Would have made the past few months that much easier to take.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction, I did not see the wind direction indicator at the top left.

It seems to show that ITA may not have tacked back (initially) but simply luffed head to wind, which is their right as leeward yacht as long as 16.1 is met...

However, on the video is clear that ITA were tacking (passed head to wind) or had tacked (sails filled on new side) shortly before contact:

post-53490-0-90876800-1376212211_thumb.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think KR said that as it was so tricky the umpires probably wouldn't have penalised to anyone

 

but there was clear contact

 

so they had to penalise someone

 

imho NO was a bit too aggressive on the 2nd tack

 

AR lost all momentum

 

and his "wheel full lock" comment came when he realised he had chased LR too close and if draper chose to keep right of way they would hit

 

NO needed more time practicing starts

 

but then he needed to win that race to he had to try some high risk maneuvers to be first to the mark

 

unlucky for him draper could afford to get a penalty in an aggressive start

 

more than he could afford to be losing another start

 

so at the crucial moment

 

like when jimmy sent wuss into the committee boat

 

draper didn't give way when he could have

 

'cause he was sick of it making him look like a mug

 

at this level you can only afford to be gracious once

Link to post
Share on other sites

f you look on the AC site, you can find spreadsheets from both boats and all official boats showing all sorts of data incuding radio traffic. One of those pieces of data is rudder angle. This is only available to the umpires and not other teams. From that they are able to determine the state of the helm of both boats in real time.

 

Which is all very well, but it doesn't tell you how much helm you can apply at any one time. Sticking helm on is all very well, but if all it results in is two stalled out rudders, it's not very helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In BoatingNZ magazine a few months ago, there was an article called the Umpires strike back. It explained how the calls are being made and what info is available.

 

If you look on the AC site, you can find spreadsheets from both boats and all official boats showing all sorts of data incuding radio traffic. One of those pieces of data is rudder angle. This is only available to the umpires and not other teams. From that they are able to determine the state of the helm of both boats in real time. There is a shit load of other stuff and is quite interesting to open and look at.

 

Clip is from "Umpire Booth Replays":

http://noticeboard.a...-booth-replays/

I think you will find the arrow from the mast is the rudder angle and if that is the case then AR was still turning right at the contact.
Thanks SL33 SF

 

Just remember err is human, if you really want to fuck up, use a computer.

 

Sad for AR, would love to have seen them get one race at least. Would have made the past few months that much easier to take.

do you mean the arrow from the mast that changes length, why would rudder angle have a vector component.?

Link to post
Share on other sites

if wind direction and heading are accurately represented in the graphics:

 

LR luffed beyond head to wind. when contact was made LR had not completed tack onto close-hauled course and so was tacking. tacking boat has to keep clear.

 

jib filling after they passed head to wind does not necessarily mean they had completed tack. AR was not tacking and didn't have to avoid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

arrow at mast can't be rudder angle it must be the actual direction and speed of the boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it was crucial for AR to complete tack onto port before LR starting luffing back at them. so the full wheel lock was warranted.

 

then both boats on port and LR luffing: AR had to avoid the luff by LR which they did. but when LR passed head to wind they (LR) lost their rights.

 

AR then would have only had to start avoiding at the point that LR completes their tack onto starboard (by getting down onto a close-hauled heading) or got back to head to wind.

 

what is AC72 close-hauled course? around 45degrees off the wind

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does look like LR was still tacking or had just completed a tack back to starboard at the point of contact. But AR began avoidance maneuver way before LR gained right of way, so I'd say penalty on LR for tacking too close. Major screwup by the umpires. Hope they call a press conference and confess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does look like LR was still tacking or had just completed a tack back to starboard at the point of contact.

RRS AC deletes rule 13. So there's no requirement to go close-hauled to complete the tack.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I also read that as a tack too close by LR & was surprised to see AR penalised.

 

Edit:

RRS AC deletes rule 13. So there's no requirement to go close-hauled to complete the tack.

Oh, well that explains it then, a bit weird that wasn't fixed in Safety review then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The penalty was a joke - this is the factual evidence - I was on the water listening to the radios:

 

1. whether Artemis were at fault is dubious at best

2. The umpires penalised Artemis 25 s before the start

3. It was supposed to be a VMG penalty

4. the umpire in the booth was not accustomed with the buttons so fucked up on pressing the buttons to indicate a vmg penalty

- Umpire Mike Martin who would normally press the buttons was awol (apparently with the band "red hot chilli powders " in a rib on the water)

5. The woman replacing Mike Martin in the booth fucked up by not knowing the button sequence - after pressing the SWE penalty button you then have to press either the VMG button (as in this case) or the boat on boat bot penalty button)

6. in a panic she pressed the SWE penalty button and then realised that nothing had happened so instead of pressing the VMG button pressed the SWE button again which completely cleared the penalty.

7. It was a total fuck up - the penalty was supposed to be a vmg penalty which would have penalised Artemis by approx. 2 boat lengths on the first reach - they started 4 boat lengths ahead of LR so should have still been leading at mark 1

8. the penalty was so late it was a joke and it was eventually signalled as a boat on boat penalty (due to it being signalled so late after the start), instead of a vmg penalty

9, Artemis were completely screwed by the umpires - and that's the way it is

10. When the umpires realised they had fucked up WHY didn't they just abandon the race at mark 1 and do a restart ??

10. Artemis could have protested the race afterwards but the honour of guys like percy and TT decided that it just wasn't worth it.

 

CONCLUSION: Umpire's you fucked up and deprived us of a possibly the best race so far, #pleasedon'tfuckupagain

 

#sailonbart

How do you know that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My take at the time was that AR over-rotated onto port with LR when I did not feel they needed to, they had the block on to the line and just needed to hold. If LR tacked to gain some gauge away from AR, OK, let them go.

 

I need to look at the replays but it appeared that AR were back onto starboard but had not flopped the wing back but I think the jib was back onto the port side of the boat. I agree that LR was tacking but appeared to have completed the tack and AR could have been in a position to avoid P/S.

 

Off to take another look, I was too bummed to watch it again last night, had hoped for AR to pull one win out of the hat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The critical moment in my book, AR head-to-wind to on the way to STB and LR over on STB:

 

post-43532-0-76298000-1376236133_thumb.jpg

 

It is a close call as AR had come-in to put a classic hook move on, but I again feel they over rotated going onto port.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, some of you have not noticed that the AC RRS removed ISAF RRS rule 13 "while tacking".

Yes, Rule 13 has vanished [stunned silence], I wasn't aware of that.

So a leeward boat on port can force a windward boat into a full tack, then becomes windward boat and gets luffed... repeat until both are in irons?

 

With these fundamental changes to the RSS we have a situation that the sailors who watch dont understand the rules while the public still does not understand them. Classic lose - lose.

Methinks that this AC should not have tried to reinvent each and every part of sailboat racing and instead should have concentrated on a few key issues....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A screen shot in the situation does not tell the story. LR was RoW to leeward of AR. LE changed tacks to starboard, there is no rule 13, so LE never had had to keep clear of AR or became a keep clear boat. The entire time the only limitation on LE was rule 16. LE gave room when she altered course, but AR was not keeping clear so she received the penalty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A screen shot in the situation does not tell the story. LR was RoW to leeward of AR. LE changed tacks to starboard, there is no rule 13, so LE never had had to keep clear of AR or became a keep clear boat. The entire time the only limitation on LE was rule 16. LE gave room when she altered course, but AR was not keeping clear so she received the penalty.

 

True, but it shows the critical moment just before contact. My point is that AR should not have rotated so far chasing LR that they ended-up on port. Roll up on starboard to leeward between LR and the line, then bear away when the clock ran out. Going over to port as you state put LR as the leeward boat and AR needing to give way. They could have been foiling away as LR was coming out of their tack.

 

This is where they should have been instead of the above (shot from a few seconds later):

 

post-43532-0-64084700-1376248421_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

A screen shot in the situation does not tell the story. LR was RoW to leeward of AR. LE changed tacks to starboard, there is no rule 13, so LE never had had to keep clear of AR or became a keep clear boat. The entire time the only limitation on LE was rule 16. LE gave room when she altered course, but AR was not keeping clear so she received the penalty.

 

By the way, in Italy/Italian boats are generally masculine ("he"). . . . or at least that's how the Italians I have sailed with refer to their boats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, even Estar can be partially wrong, sometimes! :) In Italian, a generic "barca" (boat) is feminine, while a specific one or a class is mostly (but not always) masculine. Thus, you have "un Laser, un catamarano" - but also "una Star"

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In BoatingNZ magazine a few months ago, there was an article called the Umpires strike back. It explained how the calls are being made and what info is available.

 

If you look on the AC site, you can find spreadsheets from both boats and all official boats showing all sorts of data incuding radio traffic. One of those pieces of data is rudder angle. This is only available to the umpires and not other teams. From that they are able to determine the state of the helm of both boats in real time. There is a shit load of other stuff and is quite interesting to open and look at.

 

Clip is from "Umpire Booth Replays":

http://noticeboard.a...-booth-replays/

I think you will find the arrow from the mast is the rudder angle and if that is the case then AR was still turning right at the contact.
Thanks SL33 SF

 

Just remember err is human, if you really want to fuck up, use a computer.

 

Sad for AR, would love to have seen them get one race at least. Would have made the past few months that much easier to take.

do you mean the arrow from the mast that changes length, why would rudder angle have a vector component.?

No it wouldn't. If it is a velocity vector, it does show that AR was still turning to starboard or their momentum was still moving in that direction when they collided. At least someone has actually looked at it. Good. So it looks more like LR has tacked too close.

 

Either way it will sharpen up the umpire calls before it gets really serious.

 

It is amazing how good we all are at the rules. Be interesting to know how many posters are judges/umpires.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, even Estar can be partially wrong, sometimes! :) In Italian, a generic "barca" (boat) is feminine, while a specific one or a class is mostly (but not always) masculine. Thus, you have "un Laser, un catamarano" - but also "una Star"

Xlot,

 

:) "to be human is to often be wrong".

 

I was in fact referring to what specific boats are called, and an above post which referred to LR as a SHE. So, you may well know, the LR team and owner, do they in fact refer to their boat as a he or she? In the anglo world it is almost always 'my boat, SHE is so beautiful', while with my Italian friend's it is 'my boat, HE is so very fast'.

 

Regarding the AC RRS, does anyone have a link summarizing the changes that were made vs. the normal RRS? I know we discussed this when the AC RRS were released but I at least have forgotten the important points except for rule 13.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without Rule 13 when are you on starboard tack?

 

Immediately as you are past head to wind.

 

Here is a rules change summary, which I have copied (and edited a little) from Presuming Ed's post in the old rules thread:

 

So, on a quick read: (My initial thoughts in italics)

 

13 (While tacking & gybing) gone. No definition of tacking

16.2 kept for match racing - no more dial downs. Makes sense at a closing speed of 40 knots.

17 gone - no proper course limitations on any luffs.

RRS 18 .1.a) gone - 18 applies between boats on opposite tacks

RRS 18.1. b ) gone - l18 applies between boats on opposite tacks

- Inside boat on port has a right to mark room at a port rounding windward mark? (Doubt they'll ever use a port rounding windward mark for fleet or match racing)

18.1.c&d (18 doesn't apply between boats approaching and leaving a mark, & also doesn't apply at a continuing obstruction)- still there.

18.2 c changed - losing mark room while tacking gone - you keep the right to mark room if you tack.

18.2.d gone - reasonable doubt. - but see new rule 6 - last point of certainty.

18.3 (approaching a mark on opposite tacks) gone - no shock, as 13 has gone and there's no such thing (from a rules basis) as "tacking"

18.4 still there & incorporating tacking - you can't sail the opposition away from marks.

18.5 simplified.

19.1 - obstructions have zones.

19.2 a/b/c look unchanged (subject to addition of "bowsprit overlap") no surprise.

20.1 - comms by radio, not the (required) arm waving normally seen in match racing. No shock given the speeds.

 

26.1

- port gets an earlier entry - ?should? always get the cross? No more dial ups? Shorter pre start as well.

 

42.1 A yacht shall compete only by using the wind and water to increase, maintain or decrease her speed. Her crew may adjust the trim of the wing, sails, rudders, daggerboards and hulls, and perform other acts of seamanship.

No mention of stored power? Maybe in class rules ? Hydraulic/Pneumatic accumulators.... powered by grinders...???

44.1 - Immediate penalties. You can't sit on a penalty and wait for the best moment to unwind. Make sense with the smaller penalty.

44.2 - standard penalty of 4bl. b ) a pre-start penalty is 2bl.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same as normal RRS.

 

ACRRS:

Tack, Starboard or Port A yacht is on the tack, starboard or port, corresponding to her windward side.

 

Leeward and Windward A yacht’s leeward side is the side that is or, when she is head to wind, was away from the wind. The other side is her windward side. When two yachts on the same tack overlap, the yacht with any part of either hull on the leeward side of the other’s leeward hull is the leeward yacht. The other is the windward yacht.

 

Standard RRS:

 

Tack, Starboard or Port A boat is on the tack, starboard or port, corresponding to her windward side.

 

Leeward and Windward A boat’s leeward side is the side that is or, when she is head to wind, was away from the wind. However, when sailing by the lee or directly downwind, her leeward side is the side on which her mainsail lies. The other side is her windward side. When two boats on the same tack overlap, the one on the leeward side of the other is the leeward boat. The other is the windward boat.

 

Just because a boat is tacking doesn't mean she's in an undefined "neither tack" situation. As soon as she passes head to wind, or the boom starts to cross on the gybe (so it's no longer lying on one side), you've changed tack. (*)

 

The AC rules remove references to sailing by the lee because they're never going to do that.

 

Anybody know why the AC rules refer to yachts, not boats? Seems a slightly odd thing to bother about changing. Might be to increase gravitas, I suppose. No idea.

 

(* This gives to one of the more obscure rule related quirks. If you're running by the lee, and holding out the mainsail, if it's aback so that it would change sides immediately when released, the mainsail is no longer lying on one side. So you're actually on the opposite tack from that you think you are. And as you gave away RoW yourself (normally), 15 doesn't apply.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Without Rule 13 when are you on starboard tack?

 

Immediately as you are past head to wind.

 

Here is a rules change summary, which I have copied (and edited a little) from Presuming Ed's post in the old rules thread:

 

So, on a quick read: (My initial thoughts in italics)

 

13 (While tacking & gybing) gone. No definition of tacking

16.2 kept for match racing - no more dial downs. Makes sense at a closing speed of 40 knots.

17 gone - no proper course limitations on any luffs.

RRS 18 .1.a) gone - 18 applies between boats on opposite tacks

RRS 18.1. b ) gone - l18 applies between boats on opposite tacks

- Inside boat on port has a right to mark room at a port rounding windward mark? (Doubt they'll ever use a port rounding windward mark for fleet or match racing)

18.1.c&d (18 doesn't apply between boats approaching and leaving a mark, & also doesn't apply at a continuing obstruction)- still there.

18.2 c changed - losing mark room while tacking gone - you keep the right to mark room if you tack.

18.2.d gone - reasonable doubt. - but see new rule 6 - last point of certainty.

18.3 (approaching a mark on opposite tacks) gone - no shock, as 13 has gone and there's no such thing (from a rules basis) as "tacking"

18.4 still there & incorporating tacking - you can't sail the opposition away from marks.

18.5 simplified.

19.1 - obstructions have zones.

19.2 a/b/c look unchanged (subject to addition of "bowsprit overlap") no surprise.

20.1 - comms by radio, not the (required) arm waving normally seen in match racing. No shock given the speeds.

 

26.1

- port gets an earlier entry - ?should? always get the cross? No more dial ups? Shorter pre start as well.

 

42.1 A yacht shall compete only by using the wind and water to increase, maintain or decrease her speed. Her crew may adjust the trim of the wing, sails, rudders, daggerboards and hulls, and perform other acts of seamanship.

No mention of stored power? Maybe in class rules ? Hydraulic/Pneumatic accumulators.... powered by grinders...???

44.1 - Immediate penalties. You can't sit on a penalty and wait for the best moment to unwind. Make sense with the smaller penalty.

44.2 - standard penalty of 4bl. b ) a pre-start penalty is 2bl.

 

stored power is rueled out by

 

Interpretation No. 45 of AC72 Class Rule Version 1.1 : 22nd February, 2011

 

19.2 The use of stored energy and non-manual power is prohibited, except:

(a ) for small springs, shockcord, and similar devices;

(b ) low pressure hydraulic or gas accumulators of less than 6 bar which provide back pressure to a hydraulic system to prevent cavitation, but do no significant work themselves;

(c ) batteries to power electric bilge pumps, provided the total capacity of all pumps is not greater than 200 l/min; and

(d ) batteries to power instruments, on board crew communication and ACRM media equipment; and

(e ) for electrical operation of

(i) hydraulic valves. These operations shall only provide the input for the position of the valve;

(ii) drive clutches in winch systems.

 

(sum kwollifickayshuns follow)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The penalty was a joke - this is the factual evidence - I was on the water listening to the radios:

 

1. whether Artemis were at fault is dubious at best

2. The umpires penalised Artemis 25 s before the start

3. It was supposed to be a VMG penalty

4. the umpire in the booth was not accustomed with the buttons so fucked up on pressing the buttons to indicate a vmg penalty

- Umpire Mike Martin who would normally press the buttons was awol (apparently with the band "red hot chilli powders " in a rib on the water)

5. The woman replacing Mike Martin in the booth fucked up by not knowing the button sequence - after pressing the SWE penalty button you then have to press either the VMG button (as in this case) or the boat on boat bot penalty button)

6. in a panic she pressed the SWE penalty button and then realised that nothing had happened so instead of pressing the VMG button pressed the SWE button again which completely cleared the penalty.

7. It was a total fuck up - the penalty was supposed to be a vmg penalty which would have penalised Artemis by approx. 2 boat lengths on the first reach - they started 4 boat lengths ahead of LR so should have still been leading at mark 1

8. the penalty was so late it was a joke and it was eventually signalled as a boat on boat penalty (due to it being signalled so late after the start), instead of a vmg penalty

9, Artemis were completely screwed by the umpires - and that's the way it is

10. When the umpires realised they had fucked up WHY didn't they just abandon the race at mark 1 and do a restart ??

10. Artemis could have protested the race afterwards but the honour of guys like percy and TT decided that it just wasn't worth it.

 

CONCLUSION: Umpire's you fucked up and deprived us of a possibly the best race so far, #pleasedon'tfuckupagain

 

#sailonbart

How do you know that?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201199056391921&set=a.2099932971345.2120849.1036023199&type=1

Link to post
Share on other sites

The AC RRS are here: http://noticeboard.americascup.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ISAF-Racing-Rules-of-Sailing-AC-Edition-v-1.19..pdf

 

15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY

 

When a yacht acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other yacht room to keep clear, unless she acquires right of way because of the other yacht’s actions.

 

16 CHANGING COURSE

 

16.1 When a right-of-way yacht changes course, she shall give the other yacht room to keep

 

clear

 

Looking at that clip, it seems to me that LR acquired the right of way as she headed up on port and gained a leeward overlap (as a result of her own actions), and AR immediately went helm to port. AR kept clear of LR all the way up to head to wind, beyond which the leeward boat does not have right of way. LR subsequently tacked to starboard again gaining the right of way (as a result of her own actions) and is therefore required to initially give AR room to keep clear again. Not only that, if she established starboard right of way the moment she passed head to wind, she may not change course (bare away) without giving the burdened yacht room to keep clear. By my eye LR didn't give AR room to keep clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is my take on a play by play of the situation.

 

LR acquires right-of-way at 0:08 in the clip when AR tacks to port and makes LR the leeward yacht. As this is because of ARs action, LR is not required by 15 to keep clear.

 

When LR breaks the overlap at 0:11, the rule changes to 12, but there is no change in who is right-of-way yacht.

 

At 0:14 AR re-establishes overlap, and rule 11 is back in effect. Still no change in who is right-of-way yacht.

 

At 0:18 LR tacks on to starboard and rule 10 kicks in. Because there is no rule 13, LR does not have to keep clear and as such, remains right-of-way yacht.

 

So while the rules that grants LR right-of-way changes, there is no "acquiring" and rule 15 is not in play.

 

That is until 0:23 when AR tacks. Now AR becomes leeward boat by rule 11 and have acquired right of way. Because this was because of ARs actions, rule 15 applies for AR.

 

Have to agree with SL33. Re-writing the rules is a classic lose-lose

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does look like LR was still tacking or had just completed a tack back to starboard at the point of contact. But AR began avoidance maneuver way before LR gained right of way, so I'd say penalty on LR for tacking too close. Major screwup by the umpires. Hope they call a press conference and confess.

 

Totally agree and the only two people who posted on the live thread at the time (Stingray & Rennaus) both thought it was a LR penalty, as I did. I still find it amazing that they gave Ar a penalty, because LR were clearly on the ropes at the time. Mind you another fucked up decision by officials in this AC, isn't exactly something to write home about eh!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Does look like LR was still tacking or had just completed a tack back to starboard at the point of contact. But AR began avoidance maneuver way before LR gained right of way, so I'd say penalty on LR for tacking too close. Major screwup by the umpires. Hope they call a press conference and confess.

 

Totally agree and the only two people who posted on the live thread at the time (Stingray & Rennaus) both thought it was a LR penalty, as I did. I still find it amazing that they gave Ar a penalty, because LR were clearly on the ropes at the time. Mind you another fucked up decision by officials in this AC, isn't exactly something to write home about eh!!!

 

Now you know why Stingray and I are no umpires ;) (at least not in sailing).

Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is my take on a play by play of the situation.

 

LR acquires right-of-way at 0:08 in the clip when AR tacks to port and makes LR the leeward yacht. As this is because of ARs action, LR is not required by 15 to keep clear.

 

When LR breaks the overlap at 0:11, the rule changes to 12, but there is no change in who is right-of-way yacht.

 

At 0:14 AR re-establishes overlap, and rule 11 is back in effect. Still no change in who is right-of-way yacht.

 

At 0:18 LR tacks on to starboard and rule 10 kicks in. Because there is no rule 13, LR does not have to keep clear and as such, remains right-of-way yacht.

 

So while the rules that grants LR right-of-way changes, there is no "acquiring" and rule 15 is not in play.

 

That is until 0:23 when AR tacks. Now AR becomes leeward boat by rule 11 and have acquired right of way. Because this was because of ARs actions, rule 15 applies for AR.

 

Have to agree with SL33. Re-writing the rules is a classic lose-lose

When the overlap was broken with both boats on port, wouldn't there be a "reset", if you will, regarding the acquisition of right of way? AR may have been behind, but was certainly not overtaking. When LR headed up and created an overlap (and continued to head up through head to wind) I would think an argument could be made that LR acquired right of way through her own actions at that point. The luff and tack were one continuous action IMHO, and LR at no point provided AR room to keep clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bastardized everywhere. Everyone, including AR, glosses over the fuckups. EVEN NOW--or 24 hours ago, thereabouts--this massive wrong against AR COULD have, SHOULD have, been righted. And just like the lead in the dolphin striker, all will get glossed over.

 

AND maybe we need yet another rule: if, after one minute of a perceived violation, button-pushing umpires will get electroshock wakeups and boats shall sail on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO said yesterday that AR's rules advisor was looking into it. 15 and 16.1 suggest that LR is who should have been penalized but whatever the f-up was, apparently AR chose to let it go.

 

Sad, because AR had a significant lead over LR on L2 before they were forced to let LR pass. Sad too for the larger issue, if the umps f'd up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Does look like LR was still tacking or had just completed a tack back to starboard at the point of contact. But AR began avoidance maneuver way before LR gained right of way, so I'd say penalty on LR for tacking too close. Major screwup by the umpires. Hope they call a press conference and confess.

Totally agree and the only two people who posted on the live thread at the time (Stingray & Rennaus) both thought it was a LR penalty, as I did. I still find it amazing that they gave Ar a penalty, because LR were clearly on the ropes at the time. Mind you another fucked up decision by officials in this AC, isn't exactly something to write home about eh!!!

How can you justify a penalty to LR under the rules? How is LR on the ropes? I would be interested in your logic when rights, obligations and responsibilities are applied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 only applies when right-of-way passes from one competitor to the other.

 

Try looking at the rules the other way - by who is required to keep clear. Part 2 Section A of both the AC RRS and the "regular" RRS starts with this quib:

 

  1. A yacht has right of way when another yacht is required to keep clear of her. However, some rules in Sections B, C and D limit the actions of a right-of-way yacht.

So looking at the incident by keeping track of who has to keep clear:

At 0:08 AR tacks to port and is now windward yacht. Per rule 11 AR is required to keep clear, and as LR acquired right-of-way by ARs actions, she is not initially required to keep clear. At this point, ARs obligation is to keep clear.

 

At 0:11 the overlap is broken and the rule in action is 12. At this point, ARs obligation is to keep clear.

 

At about 0:12 LR starts to head up. She is now limited by rule 16.1 in her right-of-way, in that she has to allow AR room to keep clear. However, it is still ARs obligation to actually keep clear.

 

At 0:15, after the overlap is reestablished and rule 11 is now the one requiring AR to keep clear, it looks like AR starts to luff.

 

At 0:18 when LR tacks, the rule is now 10, but under AC RRS it is still ARs obligation is to keep clear. Under normal circumstances we would have rule 13 and LR would be the one required to keep clear until she was on a close hauled course, and this incident is a good example of why we have this rule, and why Sir Russell's "simplified rules" is another miss/not-that-great-idea.

 

So I think it's pretty clear that during the entire incident, it was ARs obligation to keep clear. The only limit on LR in this incident is 16.1 and my guess is that the umps found that when LR started to turn, AR had room to keep clear. This is where being able to watch the rudders is very helpful. My estimation is that AR waited to react for something like 3-4 seconds. When match racing with "The Best Sailors", one would think that should be ample room.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So this is my take on a play by play of the situation.

 

LR acquires right-of-way at 0:08 in the clip when AR tacks to port and makes LR the leeward yacht. As this is because of ARs action, LR is not required by 15 to keep clear.

 

When LR breaks the overlap at 0:11, the rule changes to 12, but there is no change in who is right-of-way yacht.

 

At 0:14 AR re-establishes overlap, and rule 11 is back in effect. Still no change in who is right-of-way yacht.

 

At 0:18 LR tacks on to starboard and rule 10 kicks in. Because there is no rule 13, LR does not have to keep clear and as such, remains right-of-way yacht.

 

So while the rules that grants LR right-of-way changes, there is no "acquiring" and rule 15 is not in play.

 

That is until 0:23 when AR tacks. Now AR becomes leeward boat by rule 11 and have acquired right of way. Because this was because of ARs actions, rule 15 applies for AR.

 

Have to agree with SL33. Re-writing the rules is a classic lose-lose

When the overlap was broken with both boats on port, wouldn't there be a "reset", if you will, regarding the acquisition of right of way? AR may have been behind, but was certainly not overtaking. When LR headed up and created an overlap (and continued to head up through head to wind) I would think an argument could be made that LR acquired right of way through her own actions at that point. The luff and tack were one continuous action IMHO, and LR at no point provided AR room to keep clear.

In match racing there are two types of boats, the right boat and the give boat, or simpler, the wrong boat. AR is the give boat from 25 sec until contact at 43 sec. The vectors show her continuing to close the gap, and as the give boat, that puts her at risk the entire time. Her option or out, was to tack to keep clear of the right boat. The rotation by LR caused the new overlap, but as she was the right boat already under 12, there would be no limitation by 15 as 12 turned off and 11 on. The give boat got too close, and the video and graphic both show that the limitation of the right boat under 16.1 were fulfilled. The vector is the evidence, as the definition of room says promptly in a seaman like way, sailing towards a right boat when they have given you room would not be seamanlike.

Umpire discussion

 

Hypothetical dialog

 

Blue Umpire (AR) stern give

Yellow Umpire (LR) ahead right

B overlap, leeward right, giving you room

Y agree, keeping clear

B altering, giving you room

Y keeping clear, only option is to tack

Y starboard, right, gave you room

B agree

B windward give, keeping clear

Y ahead, right

B keeping clear

Y overlap, leeward right

B agree

Y altering, giving you room

B agree, gap closing, I'm not doing enough

B tack only option, I am not keeping clear

B gap closing, it's on me

Y starboard

B contact

B yankee blue, it's on me

y agree

Penalty blue

Link to post
Share on other sites

A screen shot in the situation does not tell the story. LR was RoW to leeward of AR. LE changed tacks to starboard, there is no rule 13, so LE never had had to keep clear of AR or became a keep clear boat. The entire time the only limitation on LE was rule 16. LE gave room when she altered course, but AR was not keeping clear so she received the penalty.

LE? Larry Ellison?

Seems to me AR was trying to keep clear the entire time from initiation of LR's luff right through to the moment of contact. If that is true, LR breaks 16.1 regardless of port/starboard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A screen shot in the situation does not tell the story. LR was RoW to leeward of AR. LR changed tacks to starboard, there is no rule 13, so LR never had had to keep clear of AR or became a keep clear boat. The entire time the only limitation on LR was rule 16. LR gave room when she altered course, but AR was not keeping clear so she received the penalty.

LE? Larry Ellison?

Seems to me AR was trying to keep clear the entire time from initiation of LR's luff right through to the moment of contact. If that is true, LR breaks 16.1 regardless of port/starboard.

To little, to late and AR buys the penalty. Continuing towards the right boat, is not what the umpires want to see. (Vector of AR)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So this is my take on a play by play of the situation.

 

LR acquires right-of-way at 0:08 in the clip when AR tacks to port and makes LR the leeward yacht. As this is because of ARs action, LR is not required by 15 to keep clear.

 

When LR breaks the overlap at 0:11, the rule changes to 12, but there is no change in who is right-of-way yacht.

 

At 0:14 AR re-establishes overlap, and rule 11 is back in effect. Still no change in who is right-of-way yacht.

 

At 0:18 LR tacks on to starboard and rule 10 kicks in. Because there is no rule 13, LR does not have to keep clear and as such, remains right-of-way yacht.

 

So while the rules that grants LR right-of-way changes, there is no "acquiring" and rule 15 is not in play.

 

That is until 0:23 when AR tacks. Now AR becomes leeward boat by rule 11 and have acquired right of way. Because this was because of ARs actions, rule 15 applies for AR.

 

Have to agree with SL33. Re-writing the rules is a classic lose-lose

When the overlap was broken with both boats on port, wouldn't there be a "reset", if you will, regarding the acquisition of right of way? AR may have been behind, but was certainly not overtaking. When LR headed up and created an overlap (and continued to head up through head to wind) I would think an argument could be made that LR acquired right of way through her own actions at that point. The luff and tack were one continuous action IMHO, and LR at no point provided AR room to keep clear.

In match racing there are two types of boats, the right boat and the give boat, or simpler, the wrong boat. AR is the give boat from 25 sec until contact at 43 sec. The vectors show her continuing to close the gap, and as the give boat, that puts her at risk the entire time. Her option or out, was to tack to keep clear of the right boat. The rotation by LR caused the new overlap, but as she was the right boat already under 12, there would be no limitation by 15 as 12 turned off and 11 on. The give boat got too close, and the video and graphic both show that the limitation of the right boat under 16.1 were fulfilled. The vector is the evidence, as the definition of room says promptly in a seaman like way, sailing towards a right boat when they have given you room would not be seamanlike.

Umpire discussion

 

Hypothetical dialog

 

Blue Umpire (AR) stern give

Yellow Umpire (LR) ahead right

B overlap, leeward right, giving you room

Y agree, keeping clear

B altering, giving you room

Y keeping clear, only option is to tack

Y starboard, right, gave you room

B agree

B windward give, keeping clear

Y ahead, right

B keeping clear

Y overlap, leeward right

B agree

Y altering, giving you room

B agree, gap closing, I'm not doing enough

B tack only option, I am not keeping clear

B gap closing, it's on me

Y starboard

B contact

B yankee blue, it's on me

y agree

Penalty blue

thanx a lot, fassinating insite into how umps myt werk

Link to post
Share on other sites

So then, it appears that a leeward boat has the right to luff a boat beyond head to wind? Never heard of that one. Had LR stopped luffing at head to wind, AR would have kept clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wunder if these botes can afford to sit hed to wind - or do they get irretreevably cort in ionz?

 

If thay do, thats wun mor stryk agenst there sootibillity for match racing

Link to post
Share on other sites

So then, it appears that a leeward boat has the right to luff a boat beyond head to wind? Never heard of that one. Had LR stopped luffing at head to wind, AR would have kept clear.

You are missing the point that rule 13 does not exist in the world of the AC. LR was the right boat to leeward and continued to be the right boat on starboard. There was no interruption that rule 13 would have provided. The whole time there was room for AR to keep clear. Yes she may have had to tack and that was not the strategy she wanted to employ at the time, but it was the option.

 

A classic example in match racing for a double penalty would be two boats overlapped seconds before the start on port tack near the signal boat. The leeward boat can luff head to wind, but go no further. She has to give room for the windward boat to keep clear when she luffs and if the windward boat was so close that she wasn't keeping clear, windward may buy a penalty. Leeward can only go past head to wind if windward goes first. If both boats are tacking, right is right, and she is ok. She goes first by a misjudgment, it's a double. Again this is an example in the real world of the RRS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So then, it appears that a leeward boat has the right to luff a boat beyond head to wind? Never heard of that one. Had LR stopped luffing at head to wind, AR would have kept clear.

You are missing the point that rule 13 does not exist in the world of the AC. LR was the right boat to leeward and continued to be the right boat on starboard. There was no interruption that rule 13 would have provided. The whole time there was room for AR to keep clear. Yes she may have had to tack and that was not the strategy she wanted to employ at the time, but it was the option.

A classic example in match racing for a double penalty would be two boats overlapped seconds before the start on port tack near the signal boat. The leeward boat can luff head to wind, but go no further. She has to give room for the windward boat to keep clear when she luffs and if the windward boat was so close that she wasn't keeping clear, windward may buy a penalty. Leeward can only go past head to wind if windward goes first. If both boats are tacking, right is right, and she is ok. She goes first by a misjudgment, it's a double. Again this is an example in the real world of the RRS.

My head hurts. I've done very little match racing, so I don't know the subtleties of these moves. At the end of the day, I guess it's a judgement call as to wether AR were doing all they could to keep clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The penalty should have been signaled much sooner as admitted by the umpires.

The pre-start penalty should have been issued immediately, but through an error it wasn’t imposed until Artemis Racing was nearly at the first turning mark and flying along at high speed. The Umpires watched what was happening and cleared the penalty once Luna Rossa was two boatlengths ahead of Artemis Racing on the first downwind leg.

http://www.americascup.com/en/news/3/news/17225/artemis-racing-bows-out-gracefully

Link to post
Share on other sites

come on, now one has mentioned rule 69. Sounds like gross badness to me.

Even the umpires watching as the WRONG PENALTY was being displayed, hello. No one would do that.

 

It was a clear general recall moment, (regardless of the fact they penalized the wrong boat). Your allowed to pin a boat to leeward, and that is exactly what AR did. At no point in time should you assume the other boat will tack (illegally forcing you to TACK), you only need to keep clear of a luff (and even then, the luffing boat can't overcook it - and just to be clear, these are both slow turning cats).

 

No one I have talked to thinks that AR was in the wrong. Quite the contrary, it was either tacking to close, or not avoiding a collision (LR didn't alter course to avoid, they were heading DOWN). If you can (but don't) turn away from a collision,,,, your the fool in ever rule decision. Now I have seen that increasingly, the professional umps seem to let this one go, and seem to allow collisions more and more (and penalize the give way boat) - this practice (clearly highlighted by Drapers driving) of hit first protest second, its appalling and not the way our sport - or our ump should be taking the sport.

 

Anyway, just stupid. I guess we should get comfortable with stupid decisions, messed up electronics, sailors just not giving a damn about it (because they can't do anything about it).

 

oh well

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So then, it appears that a leeward boat has the right to luff a boat beyond head to wind? Never heard of that one. Had LR stopped luffing at head to wind, AR would have kept clear.

You are missing the point that rule 13 does not exist in the world of the AC. LR was the right boat to leeward and continued to be the right boat on starboard. There was no interruption that rule 13 would have provided. The whole time there was room for AR to keep clear. Yes she may have had to tack and that was not the strategy she wanted to employ at the time, but it was the option.

 

A classic example in match racing for a double penalty would be two boats overlapped seconds before the start on port tack near the signal boat. The leeward boat can luff head to wind, but go no further. She has to give room for the windward boat to keep clear when she luffs and if the windward boat was so close that she wasn't keeping clear, windward may buy a penalty. Leeward can only go past head to wind if windward goes first. If both boats are tacking, right is right, and she is ok. She goes first by a misjudgment, it's a double. Again this is an example in the real world of the RRS.

 

If that's the case, I'm pondering a dangerous situation...

Two boats in close quarters close hauled on port tack. The leeward boat a half boat length ahead, less that half boat length separating them laterally. The leeward boat can then slam a tack into the windward boat? Seems of all sailboat racing, the AC should disallow this type of maneuver when the boats can be moving at speeds which will ensure serious injury?

 

I disagree that Artemis had time to keep clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So then, it appears that a leeward boat has the right to luff a boat beyond head to wind? Never heard of that one. Had LR stopped luffing at head to wind, AR would have kept clear.

 

You are missing the point that rule 13 does not exist in the world of the AC. LR was the right boat to leeward and continued to be the right boat on starboard. There was no interruption that rule 13 would have provided. The whole time there was room for AR to keep clear. Yes she may have had to tack and that was not the strategy she wanted to employ at the time, but it was the option.

A classic example in match racing for a double penalty would be two boats overlapped seconds before the start on port tack near the signal boat. The leeward boat can luff head to wind, but go no further. She has to give room for the windward boat to keep clear when she luffs and if the windward boat was so close that she wasn't keeping clear, windward may buy a penalty. Leeward can only go past head to wind if windward goes first. If both boats are tacking, right is right, and she is ok. She goes first by a misjudgment, it's a double. Again this is an example in the real world of the RRS.

If that's the case, I'm pondering a dangerous situation...

Two boats in close quarters close hauled on port tack. The leeward boat a half boat length ahead, less that half boat length separating them laterally. The leeward boat can then slam a tack into the windward boat? Seems of all sailboat racing, the AC should disallow this type of maneuver when the boats can be moving at speeds which will ensure serious injury?

 

I disagree that Artemis had time to keep clear.

 

The great newbie question whenever they are learning to match race is, "how close is too close?"

 

The correct answer from an umpire is "it depends".

 

Boats in match racing get much closer than in fleet racing. Match racing builds rule knowledge, boat handling, and crew work better than any other type of training. When taking these skills back to fleet racing, an average joe will see big improvements. What you perceive as a "dangerous" situation, is a normal day at the office for match racing.

 

I would go back and and read my posts that detail the situation and most likely the dialog that occurred between the OTW umpires. That AR was the give boat for almost 20 seconds gave her plenty of "time", a word you use, but not in the rule or definitions which governs the limitation of the right boat (16.1). It is more important that the give boat do everything she can to keep clear in the room she is given.

 

There is a subtle change to the definition keep clear in the RRSAC. Since the regular MR call book is not used, and there is no AC call, I will write a post about the change if anyone really cares about that. In this case it made no difference. A limitation in Section B is also not a sword for the give boat. This has gotten a bit out of hand in the "it's not my fault" world.

 

The other notable difference is that the general sailing public races with rule 13, the AC specifcally removed this for the multihulls. 17 is removed as well. That the WMRT has followed and removed 17 is a good step in my opinion as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does look like LR was still tacking or had just completed a tack back to starboard at the point of contact. But AR began avoidance maneuver way before LR gained right of way, so I'd say penalty on LR for tacking too close. Major screwup by the umpires. Hope they call a press conference and confess.

 

Bang correct!!! An absolute fecking joke. Even SR and Ren called it exactly the same on the live race feed thread.

 

The reality is that pre-start LR was on the ropes and the umpires bag a penalty to Ar???

 

Perhaps they are just getting into practise for calling terrible decisions, so that when they happen in the AC, no one is surprised.

 

I have to say the standard of 'NEUTRAL' officialdom in this AC beggars belief (Why hasn't IM canned the regatta or resigned?? He said that the only way the regatta could be run safely, is if all 37 SR were adopted. They weren't. So can the regatta or resign. His position is currently untenable, by his own admission.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

. . .

 

I would go back and and read my posts that detail the situation and most likely the dialog that occurred between the OTW umpires. That AR was the give boat for almost 20 seconds gave her plenty of "time", a word you use, but not in the rule or definitions which governs the limitation of the right boat (16.1). It is more important that the give boat do everything she can to keep clear in the room she is given.

 

There is a subtle change to the definition keep clear in the RRSAC. Since the regular MR call book is not used, and there is no AC call, I will write a post about the change if anyone really cares about that. In this case it made no difference. A limitation in Section B is also not a sword for the give boat. This has gotten a bit out of hand in the "it's not my fault" world.

 

The other notable difference is that the general sailing public races with rule 13, the AC specifcally removed this for the multihulls. 17 is removed as well. That the WMRT has followed and removed 17 is a good step in my opinion as well.

I don't see 20 seconds anywhere. LINK I see about 14 seconds from the time AR passes to port tack until the collision. But I also count no more than 4 seconds between the time LR starts to come up and the time AR starts up. Is AR supposed to anticipate LR's change of course and come up first? And how much more promptly can one manuver in a seamanlike way under those conditions than AR did?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

So then, it appears that a leeward boat has the right to luff a boat beyond head to wind? Never heard of that one. Had LR stopped luffing at head to wind, AR would have kept clear.

You are missing the point that rule 13 does not exist in the world of the AC. LR was the right boat to leeward and continued to be the right boat on starboard. There was no interruption that rule 13 would have provided. The whole time there was room for AR to keep clear. Yes she may have had to tack and that was not the strategy she wanted to employ at the time, but it was the option.

A classic example in match racing for a double penalty would be two boats overlapped seconds before the start on port tack near the signal boat. The leeward boat can luff head to wind, but go no further. She has to give room for the windward boat to keep clear when she luffs and if the windward boat was so close that she wasn't keeping clear, windward may buy a penalty. Leeward can only go past head to wind if windward goes first. If both boats are tacking, right is right, and she is ok. She goes first by a misjudgment, it's a double. Again this is an example in the real world of the RRS.

If that's the case, I'm pondering a dangerous situation...

Two boats in close quarters close hauled on port tack. The leeward boat a half boat length ahead, less that half boat length separating them laterally. The leeward boat can then slam a tack into the windward boat? Seems of all sailboat racing, the AC should disallow this type of maneuver when the boats can be moving at speeds which will ensure serious injury?

 

I disagree that Artemis had time to keep clear.

 

The great newbie question whenever they are learning to match race is, "how close is too close?"

 

The correct answer from an umpire is "it depends".

 

Boats in match racing get much closer than in fleet racing. Match racing builds rule knowledge, boat handling, and crew work better than any other type of training. When taking these skills back to fleet racing, an average joe will see big improvements. What you perceive as a "dangerous" situation, is a normal day at the office for match racing.

 

I would go back and and read my posts that detail the situation and most likely the dialog that occurred between the OTW umpires. That AR was the give boat for almost 20 seconds gave her plenty of "time", a word you use, but not in the rule or definitions which governs the limitation of the right boat (16.1). It is more important that the give boat do everything she can to keep clear in the room she is given.

 

There is a subtle change to the definition keep clear in the RRSAC. Since the regular MR call book is not used, and there is no AC call, I will write a post about the change if anyone really cares about that. In this case it made no difference. A limitation in Section B is also not a sword for the give boat. This has gotten a bit out of hand in the "it's not my fault" world.

 

The other notable difference is that the general sailing public races with rule 13, the AC specifcally removed this for the multihulls. 17 is removed as well. That the WMRT has followed and removed 17 is a good step in my opinion as well.

From my observation both boats were in very low speed mode. When LR slowly moved to stbd tack, AR had time to adjust but delayed their turn by several seconds...too late. IMHO the minor collision came about through clever manipulation by LR and rusty matchracing by AR. When seen in realtime slow motion it was no different to what we see every weekend in prestart MR cat/mouse low speed sailing before boats build in speed and give each other more space and time. WOW?

K

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Danceswithoctopus and disagree with flatearth. My opinion is the jury effed up. Sorry flatearth.- funny how you label folks as "newbie" when their views differ from yours.

The jury? These are on the water umpires, major difference. Just for giggles how many years of umpiring experience and march racing do you have? Get on the water for many grade 1 or tour events? Go to a debrief for a G3 or lower and see how many times that question is asked.

 

I enjoy an opposite view expecially if a convincing augument can be made. The issue is not one person who has disagreed with the decision has been able defend their position under the RRSAC and the process the umpires employ. Reading the posts and the comments that the umpires made a mistake, has been rooted in their own subjective experiences under the RRS and fleet racing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

. . .

I would go back and and read my posts that detail the situation and most likely the dialog that occurred between the OTW umpires. That AR was the give boat for almost 20 seconds gave her plenty of "time", a word you use, but not in the rule or definitions which governs the limitation of the right boat (16.1). It is more important that the give boat do everything she can to keep clear in the room she is given.

There is a subtle change to the definition keep clear in the RRSAC. Since the regular MR call book is not used, and there is no AC call, I will write a post about the change if anyone really cares about that. In this case it made no difference. A limitation in Section B is also not a sword for the give boat. This has gotten a bit out of hand in the "it's not my fault" world.

The other notable difference is that the general sailing public races with rule 13, the AC specifcally removed this for the multihulls. 17 is removed as well. That the WMRT has followed and removed 17 is a good step in my opinion as well.

I don't see 20 seconds anywhere. LINK I see about 14 seconds from the time AR passes to port tack until the collision. But I also count no more than 4 seconds between the time LR starts to come up and the time AR starts up. Is AR supposed to anticipate LR's change of course and come up first? And how much more promptly can one manuver in a seamanlike way under those conditions than AR did?

20 sec was a quick rounding, taken from the ticker on the replay, it is shorter than that, but is not germaine to the discussion. That AR is the give boat for a continous period and she had room to keep clear, but did not do enough with the room, is the reason for the penalty. She put herself in harms way.

 

Usinging your words, AR does not have to anticipate anything, as the rules do not require anticipation. What she shall do is keep clear of a right boat. AR was required to keep clear during the sequence at different times continuously under rules 10, 11, or 12. She needs to do enough to satisfy the umpires that with the room given, she is doing everything she can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree with Danceswithoctopus and disagree with flatearth. My opinion is the jury effed up. Sorry flatearth.- funny how you label folks as "newbie" when their views differ from yours.

The jury? These are on the water umpires, major difference. Just for giggles how many years of umpiring experience and march racing do you have? Get on the water for many grade 1 or tour events? Go to a debrief for a G3 or lower and see how many times that question is asked.

 

I enjoy an opposite view expecially if a convincing augument can be made. The issue is not one person who has disagreed with the decision has been able defend their position under the RRSAC and the process the umpires employ. Reading the posts and the comments that the umpires made a mistake, has been rooted in their own subjective experiences under the RRS and fleet racing.

 

Flatearth,

You are very much entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. But I interpret your coments to mean that you do not respect differing views from yours because your superiority entitles you to fault anyone who disagrees. And thus you must call their credibility into question. Are you a lawyer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with Danceswithoctopus and disagree with flatearth. My opinion is the jury effed up. Sorry flatearth.- funny how you label folks as "newbie" when their views differ from yours.

 

The jury? These are on the water umpires, major difference. Just for giggles how many years of umpiring experience and march racing do you have? Get on the water for many grade 1 or tour events? Go to a debrief for a G3 or lower and see how many times that question is asked.

I enjoy an opposite view expecially if a convincing augument can be made. The issue is not one person who has disagreed with the decision has been able defend their position under the RRSAC and the process the umpires employ. Reading the posts and the comments that the umpires made a mistake, has been rooted in their own subjective experiences under the RRS and fleet racing.

Flatearth,

You are very much entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. But I interpret your coments to mean that you do not respect differing views from yours because your superiority entitles you to fault anyone who disagrees. And thus you must call their credibility into question. Are you a lawyer?

My opinions are based on training and many hours spend on the water with match racing. I am not a lawyer, but can defend the argument that the decision was correct. RROO, (Rights, Reasons, Obligations, Opportunities) is how an umpire reaches a decision. None of the other opinions posted have worked through the logic to reach a decision supporting AR. I someone did this I would listen to that view, comment and concede if wrong. As a matter of fact, in any match race you have the view of the blue boat, the yellow boat and the umpires. Each can see something different, or not what the umpire saw.

 

In the argument above you are agreeing with, there is no basis of RROO given. You might as well agree that the sun is blue, if you haven't look at it all day and someone tells you it is blue. But then if employ the method what an umpire uses, the last point of certainty, you would know that the last time you saw the sun, it was yellow, so to you, it is still yellow as you have not seen it change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with Danceswithoctopus and disagree with flatearth. My opinion is the jury effed up. Sorry flatearth.- funny how you label folks as "newbie" when their views differ from yours.

The jury? These are on the water umpires, major difference. Just for giggles how many years of umpiring experience and march racing do you have? Get on the water for many grade 1 or tour events? Go to a debrief for a G3 or lower and see how many times that question is asked.

I enjoy an opposite view expecially if a convincing augument can be made. The issue is not one person who has disagreed with the decision has been able defend their position under the RRSAC and the process the umpires employ. Reading the posts and the comments that the umpires made a mistake, has been rooted in their own subjective experiences under the RRS and fleet racing.

Flatearth,

You are very much entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. But I interpret your coments to mean that you do not respect differing views from yours because your superiority entitles you to fault anyone who disagrees. And thus you must call their credibility into question. Are you a lawyer?

My opinions are based on training and many hours spend on the water with match racing. I am not a lawyer, but can defend the argument that the decision was correct. RROO, (Rights, Reasons, Obligations, Opportunities) is how an umpire reaches a decision. None of the other opinions posted have worked through the logic to reach a decision supporting AR. I someone did this I would listen to that view, comment and concede if wrong. As a matter of fact, in any match race you have the view of the blue boat, the yellow boat and the umpires. Each can see something different, or not what the umpire saw.

 

In the argument above you are agreeing with, there is no basis of RROO given. You might as well agree that the sun is blue, if you haven't look at it all day and someone tells you it is blue. But then if employ the method what an umpire uses, the last point of certainty, you would know that the last time you saw the sun, it was yellow, so to you, it is still yellow as you have not seen it change.

 

 

Gotcha. You are right and any dissent is wrong. Any other interpretation is just outright false. Thanks for the clarification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear here, I'm not presenting an "argument" in favor of or against the ruling. I'm trying to understand it. It struck me as wrong last Saturday, but admittedly I am familiar with neither match racing rules nor the RRSAC. Although I'm pretty good with the RRS (or like to think so). And I'm damn good at analyzing well-reasoned arguments about interpreting rules and cases. I have no intention of calling you out, flatearth. You were simply one of the posters here who claims to understand and be able to articulate with some coherence the ruling on the course. I was hoping to get an understandable explanation.

 

I'm at work right now and don't really have time to develop and write an argument. But if you're interested and willing to engage in a constructive discussion, I would be willing to put one together this evening.

 

A quick question for winchfodder: what is your source for the claim that GJ has come out on the side of AR?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey flatearth, look I understand what you are saying about rule 13. I just don't think LR maneuvered in such a way that would have allowed AR to keep clear. In my view, LR rolled into a tack when both boats were downspeed with low flow past the rudders. That coupled with the already clumsy maneuverability of a large cat made it impossible for AR to keep clear without executing a course alteration before LR made their maneuver. Just my view, which in the grand scheme don't mean squat... just bantering about it cuz it's interesting to do so. I'm not saying your view is any less valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear here, I'm not presenting an "argument" in favor of or against the ruling. I'm trying to understand it. It struck me as wrong last Saturday, but admittedly I am familiar with neither match racing rules nor the RRSAC. Although I'm pretty good with the RRS (or like to think so). And I'm damn good at analyzing well-reasoned arguments about interpreting rules and cases. I have no intention of calling you out, flatearth. You were simply one of the posters here who claims to understand and be able to articulate with some coherence the ruling on the course. I was hoping to get an understandable explanation.

 

I'm at work right now and don't really have time to develop and write an argument. But if you're interested and willing to engage in a constructive discussion, I would be willing to put one together this evening.

 

A quick question for winchfodder: what is your source for the claim that GJ has come out on the side of AR?

sounds great.

 

I will say that yes this is my opinion and since I was not on the water and the only means of a debrief is the animation, that supporting the argument of the penalty is easier to do, but I am interested in your discussion.

 

At the end of the day if some education can be brought to more people about the process, it is a win for all, right or wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey flatearth, look I understand what you are saying about rule 13. I just don't think LR maneuvered in such a way that would have allowed AR to keep clear. In my view, LR rolled into a tack when both boats were downspeed with low flow past the rudders. That coupled with the already clumsy maneuverability of a large cat made it impossible for AR to keep clear without executing a course alteration before LR made their maneuver. Just my view, which in the grand scheme don't mean squat... just bantering about it cuz it's interesting to do so. I'm not saying your view is any less valid.

Good point about tacking cats and flow.

 

13 was removed for the TV viewing public and for the low speed in a tack. Explaining 13, versus just P/S was the argument. Without 13 strategy changes, but most of the time, 15 will apply when tacking on a beat. The change in the def. of keep clear under RRSAC is interesting in these situations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

at that point it is a judged event, and i buy the judges impartial stance.

What wasn't was the application of the penalty,

IP said in the on-boat interview (paraphrasing),

lots going on on the way to first mark didn't notice the penalty light, (it wasn't on), you can hear him saying we cleared the penalty go, before the start line..

that was fubar

Link to post
Share on other sites

Draper got asked that question today directly in the presser, "Was it the right call?" It could have been by far the best part of the QnA but all he said was 'Yes' and he refused to try back it up with any explanation. Disappointed me, it also IMO cast doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

A quick question for winchfodder: what is your source for the claim that GJ has come out on the side of AR?

Gj's preview of the lv finals on the ac official website. Half way through the text

Jobson: "As an aside, I think the umpires should have penalized Italy for the foul, not the Sweden." HERE

 

Thanks, WF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...