Jump to content

2018 Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race: The Race Committee has lodged a protest against Wild Oats XI


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, corkob said:

If the competitors knew it was against the rules to have the AIS turned off they may have decided to keep their powder dry.... as Blackjack did.

^^^This when they do not want to lodge a protest themselves but simply make the RC aware at the other end and leave it to the RC to do the heavy lifting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In loving memory of Clark and Daw We welcome this evening Mr Richard the skipper of the winning power boat. Hello Brian. Mr Richard, may we call you Dick? Sure Brian, most

If Matt Allen as President of AS has any balls he should put Harburg/Bradford and Oatley/Richards in a room and read them the riot act. Harburg for not protesting but having a cry on national TV and O

Ok I am now caught up on this thread. Yes I went live - first actually - with the news direct from Shipwright Arms where WOXI were having lunch in one room, and BJ in the other. Was the best place to

Posted Images

It seems too bad to me. If they turned it off intentionally they are idiots, if it failed, then you’d wonder why A $250 handheld VHF with AIS wasn’t used as a substitute?  I am surprised a land / support crew didn’t say a word either - it speaks volumes about preparation?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, random said:

Outside Assistance

it's a bit uncertain...

_unsolicited_ outside assistance does not necessarily violate a rule - if someone on a nearby boat yells "hey, your spinsheet is dragging" you don't have to retire

one issue would be whether "significant" advantage was gained by the unsolicited assistance - if it was then dsq or retirement might be required. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be a good idea to clarify exactly what we know about the WO AIS usage. I am relying on Marinetraffic so hopefully they got it right.

The unit was first turned on at 11.08 am on Boxing Day which was probably when the boat was started up to leave the dock. It was on briefly again at 12.23 pm when WO was directly west of Bradleys Head. That is a popular place for competitors  to raise their mainsails when the breeze is in the east. You get both flat water and a lee shore providing light air. Vila would have been far too important for a menial task such as pulling ropes so he probably made himself scarce and went below for final checks. He turned the AIS on at 12.23, confirmed it was working in both receive and transmit and turned it off for the rest of the race.

WO left no track on Marinetraffic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mahina said:

When will the RC file a protest against Infotrack for the same breach?  Blackjack only reported WOIX but not Infotrack who was also racing beside them and not transmitting but finished 2 places behind so I suppose nothing to be gained there.

And how many others through the fleet went stealth? They should all get the same treatment as wild oats XI. Should fifth place protest Infotrack? Why not? This is why the whole thing is a debacle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TPG said:

Regardless of "safety situations" please point out the rules violation.

Given Richos track record lately it's a small wonder he hasnt mouthed off at the owner. He wouldn't be the first.

Duh.   Regardless of safety the SIs clearly stated AIS Class-B transmissions were to be on during the entire race.  I'm not saying that was a good or bad idea, just that clearly WO violated the SIs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, us7070 said:

it's a bit uncertain...

_unsolicited_ outside assistance does not necessarily violate a rule - if someone on a nearby boat yells "hey, your spinsheet is dragging" you don't have to retire

one issue would be whether "significant" advantage was gained by the unsolicited assistance - if it was then dsq or retirement might be required. 

Your post has two 'if's in it.  I rest my case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mahina said:

When will the RC file a protest against Infotrack for the same breach?  Blackjack only reported WOIX but not Infotrack who was also racing beside them and not transmitting but finished 2 places behind so I suppose nothing to be gained there.

 

48 minutes ago, Duck said:

Will the RC go through all the starters and check that AIS was on and hand them all the same penalty?

 

46 minutes ago, us7070 said:

i don't think they are obligated to go out and look for evidence of wrong doing - but when presented with it they have to act

US is correct. The RC is the prosecutor (IJ the Judge) not the policeman. This is a self policed sport where outside mandatory inspections etc competitors are the the police.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, richiec said:

And how many others through the fleet went stealth? They should all get the same treatment as wild oats XI. Should fifth place protest Infotrack? Why not? This is why the whole thing is a debacle.

If the Jury decides against WOXI then infotrack will have to fall on their sword. Simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, richiec said:

So if 30 boats did the same thing. They all get flicked? A third of the fleet? 

So you are putting a case forward that if enough of the fleet broke the same rule then it's officially a 'debacle' and all is forgiven?

That what you are saying?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, us7070 said:

it's a bit uncertain...

_unsolicited_ outside assistance does not necessarily violate a rule - if someone on a nearby boat yells "hey, your spinsheet is dragging" you don't have to retire

one issue would be whether "significant" advantage was gained by the unsolicited assistance - if it was then dsq or retirement might be required. 

This was asked and answered during the VOR.  RC asked, pointedly, if a boat was "aware" of a certain reef.  The boat took a hard left turn and stumbled into a sweet shift - outhouse to penthouse.  

The IJ said no foul, as the advice was given by a disinterested party and the advantage ultimately gained was not apparent at the time of their course change.  Could the same call have been made by a competitor?  I've done it, unsolicited, on an open channel ,probably saved a competitor a large yard bill, and no one gave me any grief.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that this is a debacle. The rules are clear, and they have clearly been broken. Only the penalty is in question. If they are not flicked a position I would be surprised.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

 

 

US is correct. The RC is the prosecutor (IJ the Judge) not the policeman. This is a self policed sport where outside mandatory inspections etc competitors are the the police.  

I'm trying to figure out how the Race Committee is an interested party?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, richiec said:

And how many others through the fleet went stealth? They should all get the same treatment as wild oats XI. Should fifth place protest Infotrack? Why not? This is why the whole thing is a debacle

Debacle. You clearly haven't got a clue about RRS and how they are policed. enforced and determined. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

 

 

US is correct. The RC is the prosecutor (IJ the Judge) not the policeman. This is a self policed sport where outside mandatory inspections etc competitors are the the police.  

 

5 minutes ago, Cap't Billy said:

I'm trying to figure out how the Race Committee is an interested party?

 

They are not an "interested party" or in other words have no interest in any outcome. "Interested parties" are competitors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It never ceases to amaze me how these protests, in a competition where sportsmanship is so important, result in lies being spouted like there is no tomorrow. I have witnessed protests where it is difficult to tell if the opposing parties were even in the same race not to mind involved in the same incident such is the propensity to generate porkies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, corkob said:

It never ceases to amaze me how these protests, in a competition where sportsmanship is so important, result in lies being spouted like there is no tomorrow. I have witnessed protests where it is difficult to tell if the opposing parties were even in the same race not to mind involved in the same incident such is the propensity to generate porkies. 

Completely agree.  Earthlings lie.

In a race where a leader rolled the top mark.  It rotated 360 degrees with big black vertical stripes on it to make sure you could see it.

Nice guy, he just completely denied he was even close to it.  Sport brings that out in some people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

^^^This when they do not want to lodge a protest themselves but simply make the RC aware at the other end and leave it to the RC to do the heavy lifting.

And this is where the can of worms just got bigger...

As Random is so fond of pointing out :" If I saw two boats involved in an infringement, aand there was no protest, I would protest both of them".

So Blackjack has known of this infrinement since the start, they believe it has impeded them, yet they failed to inform the boat of its transgression, (vhf 16 mandatory ON for race).

See RRS BASIC PRINCIPLES, also RRS Part 1; para 2.

Ok Random, now are you going to unwad your panties and initiate a 3rd party rule 69 infringement?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, corkob said:

It never ceases to amaze me how these protests, in a competition where sportsmanship is so important, result in lies being spouted like there is no tomorrow. I have witnessed protests where it is difficult to tell if the opposing parties were even in the same race not to mind involved in the same incident such is the propensity to generate porkies. 

i do PC

i have seen the same thing with the witness testimony

i have come to believe that mostly people want to be honest - but they just see and experience  things radically differently

i think the lesson from the actual legal system, as well as experiments,  is that eye witness testimony is very unreliable

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, us7070 said:

it's time to get your predictions in...

here's mine: 30min on elapsed time

Probably choice of 3.

1. Where a penalty time has to equal one or more loss in placings. The 100' delta is 43 minutes including InfoTrack and 29 minutes to Comanche excluding InfoTrack.Take your pick.

2. DSQ.

3. Exoneration. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, us7070 said:

why?

the RRS explicitly give the RC the right to file a protest...

 

I guess that is why I think that RC's should protest sparingly.  The RC can not be disadvantaged.  But a competitor can.  I think it should fall to the aggrieved party to seek justice.  Otherwise it appears that the RC is making the claim, taking sides and being a witness all at once. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of things to consider:

  • There is no such thing as Outside Assistance, Rule 41 covers Outside Help.
  • A VHF call telling a competitor that their AIS is not working is not Outside Help as it is simply information that is freely available to all competitors - anyone with an AIS receiver can tell.
  • Most Maxis position the physical VHF near to the base of the mast to limit the length of the VHF antenna cable, which is already large enough. This means the idiot lights for Rx and Tx are usually not directly visible in the nav station. Often there's a remote switch for Tx Disable and an indicator for that in the nav station. Often, there's also ProAISII installed and running, but no USB cable attached to the AIS transceiver.
  • It's fairly simple for the AIS to be off and for that to not be obvious. Even a blown fuse could cause that or someone turning off the VHF antenna splitter. But, my bet is that AIS targets were being monitored onboard all the super maxis for competitive purposes, which means they all had AIS reception and would notice if their AIS was off. If a boat wasn't transmitting AIS data, I'm willing to bet it was via the Tx Disable function whether intentionally or unintentionally.
  • The SIs and OSR are quite clear regarding AIS Rx and Tx using the mast head antenna and that the antenna cable loss must be less than 50% of the required 25W. And that having a piece of equipment means that equipment must be on board and functioning.
  • Given that the AIS was working just before and just after the event, it's difficult to explain how the AIS failed during all of the race.
  • Whether intended or not, there was a clear violation of the rules; the finding makes itself. It's hard to imagine a penalty of less than 1 hour. I believe DSQ makes the most sense.
  • The comments from various crew members defy belief.
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

 

They are not an interested party or in other words have no interest in any outcome. Interested parties are other competitors.

No such thing as an interested party in the 2017-2020 RRS.  The term has been replaced by "Conflict of Interest."  It's irrelevant anyway.  RRS  60.2(a) gives the RC an explicit right to protest except for certain conditions, none of which apply here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, random said:

So you are putting a case forward that if enough of the fleet broke the same rule then it's officially a 'debacle' and all is forgiven?

That what you are saying?

OK I will ask another way... Should all boats who had AIS issues similar to Wild Oats be dealt the same punishment? It appears there were multiple cases/offences. If a reasonable percentage of the fleet conducted the same behavior, it is the race, the event that becomes the debacle.

Why only Wild Oats going to the room when it seems Infotrack also have a case to answer. And likely others throughout the fleet.  I am not defending any these blokes. And don't particularly give a fuck. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

You have obviously experienced a very privileged and sheltered life.

it's just t hat in my experience.., in distance races DSQ is uncommon unless it's required, or there is clear evidence of a dleiberate attempt to cheat.

there is usually wide latitude in selecting a penalty.., and some consideration is given to what's involved in doing the race.

it's not like a 1hr round the cans race that's one of 10 in a regatta.., where the PC doesn't have options

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Kermit,

  • You can't have a race without rules.
  • You can't have a great race if people don't follow the rules.
  • You can't pick and chose which rules to enforce for which competitors

So, by linear logic:

  • You can't have a great race if you know rules weren't followed and don't take action

Therefore, if it's a great race, the yacht in question gets a penalty and if the yacht in question does not get a penalty, it wasn't a great race, it was a sham.

You choose ...

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, richiec said:

OK I will ask another way... Should all boats who had AIS issues similar to Wild Oats be dealt the same punishment? It appears there were multiple cases/offences. If a reasonable percentage of the fleet conducted the same behavior, it is the race, the event that becomes the debacle.

Why only Wild Oats going to the room when it seems Infotrack also have a case to answer. And likely others throughout the fleet.  I am not defending any these blokes. And don't particularly give a fuck. 

The event only becomes a debacle if those who do not comply with the rules are no dealt with.

You have it in reverse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RealEstateBroker said:

We had the same protest on the Islands Race in So Cal a few years ago.   Boat with no AIS was DSQ.  No time penalty.   If this jury finds that WOXI breached the SI and does not DSQ them, I would be very surprised.

It won’t be DSQ IMHO. The sailing instructions allow for alternate penalties that differ from RRS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's standard VHF and HF protocol for alerting other vessels that they're standing into danger, or are poorly lit, or have their AIS TX off.  In a race this does not in any way infringe any of the rules of the RRS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kermit said:

It won’t be DSQ IMHO. The sailing instructions allow for alternate penalties that differ from RRS.

Ah, thanks; was not aware of that.  Like MR I didn't read the SIs.  But then I wasn't racing in the S2H so its all OK. :-)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, savoir said:

 

Aaaahhh, aint arrogance grand.

The trouble is that YOU are the one who hasn't got a clue. EVERY class B AIS includes a satellite function because they don't come any other way. Anyone with access to an AIS based website such as Marinetraffic can check the position of any class B AIS fitted vessel in the world. Class B is not boat to boat at all.

Off to bed with you and leave this thread to the grown ups.

Sorry, this post is plainly wrong.  Too wrong to let pass merely because a “grownup” said it.  

The satellite function that is common to all functioning AIS units is a dedicated GPS receiver.  

This is not to be confused with terrestrial or satellite monitoring of AIS transmissions, which detects some but not all AIS transmissions.  

Class B units that are in receive-only mode are not detected by AIS capable satellites, or by any other AIS receiver for that matter.  If you don’t transmit, they don’t receive the signal that you didn’t transmit.    

Class B, with lower power, less frequent transmissions, and lower system priority, is principally a boat to boat system, especially in offshore/oceanic and low traffic density waters.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, richiec said:

Answer the question. Should everyone that had AIS 'issues' cop the same penalty, right through the fleet? Yes? No? 

if the evidence is presented to the jury, and they accept that it is true.., then yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, us7070 said:

it's time to get your predictions in...

here's mine: 30min on elapsed time

Oats humbly admits they didn't know the rules, and gets penalized 20%, if they are lucky.

What do I win?

 

 

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wop, you wrote:

There's standard VHF and HF protocol for alerting other vessels that they're standing into danger

Cite a reference. Such a hail violates RRS 41 as it materially improves a yacht's position and is not information freely available to all competitors.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess: Deliberately turning if off whether out of ignorance or arrogance - DSQ

Equipment failure - penalty.  

It will be hard to tell whether it was one or the other.  I still question why no other boats let them know about the problem.  There is nothing wrong with calling other boats during a race provided everyone has access to the communications, unless such communications are specifically prohibited by the SI's.  If WOXI was drifting or disabled at night without AIS they could be run over by commercial traffic. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wess said:

Ah, thanks; was not aware of that.  Like MR I didn't read the SIs.  But then I wasn't racing in the S2H so its all OK. :-)

distance races almost always permit alternate penalties - DSQ is just too big a penalty for most infractions

that's why there will not be a DSQ here

note that for a tracker violation - the SI's require DSQ.., but this was not the tracker

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dash34 said:

My guess: Deliberately turning if off whether out of ignorance or arrogance - DSQ

Equipment failure - penalty.  

It will be hard to tell whether it was one or the other.  I still question why no other boats let them know about the problem.  There is nothing wrong with calling other boats during a race provided everyone has access to the communications, unless such communications are specifically prohibited by the SI's.  If WOXI was drifting or disabled at night without AIS they could be run over by commercial traffic. 

 

 

Not hard to tell, but in the end it does not matter what the reason was.  It was not working and the RC was not advised.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, random said:

Not hard to tell, but in the end it does not matter what the reason was.  It was not working and the RC was not advised.

That statement makes the assumption that they knew about it not working during the race.  I haven't seen anything posted on here that establishes that as fact.  PC's work with facts, not speculation.  That's why we have SA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, random said:

Doesn't matter what you or I think.  That's the point you are missing.

No one has to agree with the rules,  but everyone has to comply.

Agree with you Random. If they don't like the rules, go play tiddlywinks

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Glenn McCarthy said:

I'm totally against RC protests, unless they observed an alleged infraction.  They got a report from some competitor who didn't have the cajones to file the protest themselves.  Why didn't the competitor file the protest?  It was their job to.

hmmm ... "60.2 A race committee may (a) protest a boat, but not as a result of information arising from a request for redress or an invalid protest, or from a report from a person with a conflict of interest other than the representative of the boat herself; " and
"61.1(b) If the race committee, technical committee or protest committee intends to protest a boat concerning an incident the committee observed in the racing area, it shall inform her after the race within the time limit of rule 61.3."

And then there's: "BASIC PRINCIPLES SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire."

Which sorta trumps it all.  

Still think the RC has no business doing their job?  Or is your principle one of those that sets personal preference above the rules themselves?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Moonduster said:

 

Wop, you wrote:

There's standard VHF and HF protocol for alerting other vessels that they're standing into danger

Cite a reference. Such a hail violates RRS 41 as it materially improves a yacht's position and is not information freely available to all competitors.

 

SOLAS

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Moonduster said:

 

Wop, you wrote:

There's standard VHF and HF protocol for alerting other vessels that they're standing into danger

Cite a reference. Such a hail violates RRS 41 as it materially improves a yacht's position and is not information freely available to all competitors.

 

RRS, Part 1. Fundamental rules, Sect. 1. SAFETY.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Oats humbly admits they didn't know the rules, and gets penalized 20%, if they are lucky.

What do I win?

 

 

 

.

Last time I checked ignorance is no defence. And a full time professional skipper of a multi million dollar campaign didn't know the rules? Think I will go out and watch the pigs flying by while we are at it.

Link to post
Share on other sites