Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, strider470 said:

Admittedly the AC has never been a good money investment for nobody

I admit it- Recreational sailing is the universal definition of a financial depreciation fund.  It gets worse when one commissions a new boat, and apparently, going on to even more than one....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 8.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Having a race like that is why the committee was correct in postponing the race so many times. I think that the race was worth the wait.  Cheers to the Race Committee!

Semi Final Race 1 book is open - hit like for an AM win, dislike for LRPP.  Don’t sit on the fence now!

Please just stick to the facts and not your opinion.  You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how this all works.  The flu is down because of all the hand washing, social distancing, mask wearing,

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, The_Alchemist said:

Also scouting the competitors for the next cup.  You are already there, it is in the budget.

It will be interesting if we see AM and UK chase boats out following the practices these next few weeks.

Yes, it’s certainly an opportunity to learn. I wonder what happens to Rita and Patriot now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Patriot should be given to Canfield et al for a future Stars and Stripes entry, keep it in Auckland and minimise their costs ;)

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

Patriot should be given to Canfield et al for a future Stars and Stripes entry, keep it in Auckland and minimise their costs ;)

that boat will fizz itself to death in about 6 months

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rh3000 said:

I'm still not sure this means it was sorted before the racing... All Stuff says it's that the original plan went out "after midday" which could mean 1pm , 2, 3, 4 whatever, and then "four hours later" it was fixed... When was that? Could have been after the races... Could have been after the discussion with Ben...

The original Prize Giving programme was emailed out at 12.59pm on Sunday, ie., before the racing, on the first day that 7 wins was possible.

it states "End of race + 1 hour and 40 min. approx. - Press Conference room - Winning Team only"

The revised "Latest version" was emailed out at 5.51pm, ie., after racing and probably while the boats were heading back to their bases.

It said "End of race + 1 hour and 40 min. approx. variable - Time will be advised when possible - Press Conference room - Runner up and Winning Team"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, toad said:

that boat will fizz itself to death in about 6 months

Presumably you mean due to the cathodic reaction due to the ingress of water during the crash?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, weta27 said:

The original Prize Giving programme was emailed out at 12.59pm on Sunday, ie., before the racing, on the first day that 7 wins was possible.

it states "End of race + 1 hour and 40 min. approx. - Press Conference room - Winning Team only"

The revised "Latest version" was emailed out at 5.51pm, ie., after racing and probably while the boats were heading back to their bases.

It said "End of race + 1 hour and 40 min. approx. variable - Time will be advised when possible - Press Conference room - Runner up and Winning Team"

The initial schedule excluding INEOS was pretty fucking tone deaf.

I'm no fan of Ben but he was well justified in being upset.

The difference is that I wouldn't have gone and had a whinge to the media.

Whatever happened to the pommy stuff upper lip?

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JonRowe said:

Patriot should be given to Canfield et al for a future Stars and Stripes entry, keep it in Auckland and minimise their costs ;)

How could minimise the costs keeping the boat in the wrong hemisphere?  :D

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jaysper said:

The initial schedule excluding INEOS was pretty fucking tone deaf.

Do I remember correctly that ETNZ was excluded from the AC Prize Giving in San Fran in 2013? Or was it the press conference?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, weta27 said:

Do I remember correctly that ETNZ was excluded from the AC Prize Giving in San Fran in 2013? Or was it the press conference?

I do remember something similar, but am not sure which AC, and which team was affected. There was a bit of a shitstorm here on SA at that time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are talking about an evident error that was promptly addressed. I would have liked the same behaviour and formal excuses from ACE and Mrs Tina for their not so friendly (read disgusting) tone and official comments.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, strider470 said:

You guys are talking about an evident error that was promptly addressed. I would have liked the same behaviour and formal excuses from ACE and Mrs Tina for their not so friendly (read disgusting) tone and official comments.

Oh I wasn't thrilled about that either.

Perhaps I didn't protest it quite so much cos I was snowed under at the time.

There certainly have been plenty of things to complain about in this AC and for me the class of boat is the worst.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, badly-judged moves on both sides.

However, going back over the history of this cycle, I can't see that one particular side deserves to be labelled as the bad guys either?

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, strider470 said:

You guys are talking about an evident error that was promptly addressed. I would have liked the same behaviour and formal excuses from ACE and Mrs Tina for their not so friendly (read disgusting) tone and official comments.

It was a self claimed 'error of judgement' not a typo. It wasn't an accident, it was a poor decision wisely retracted after hours of pressure and complaints.

Perhaps news of basher ben and his crew arriving via rita to gate crash caused it's retraction :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

It was a self claimed 'error of judgement' not a typo. It wasn't an accident, it was a poor decision wisely retracted after hours of pressure and complaints.

Perhaps news of basher ben and his crew arriving via rita to gate crash caused it's retraction :-)

Speculation. Nonetheless the error was addressed. Do you have evidence of the hours of pressure and compliants? Btw if I had been Ben, I would have been upset too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, weta27 said:

I agree, badly-judged moves on both sides.

However, going back over the history of this cycle, I can't see that one particular side deserves to be labelled as the bad guys either?

Correct and I have to say that I'm pleased that Dalts seems to have got the hint. He is normally far too outspoken for my liking but seems to have managed to tone it down a lot which is great.

He is undoubtedly an impressive leader (possibly better than Blake), but he lacks Blake's gravitas.

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

Correct and I have to say that I'm pleased that Dalts seems to have got the hint. He is normally far too outspoken for my liking but seems to have managed to tone it down a lot which is great.

He is undoubtedly an impressive leader (possibly better than Blake), but he lacks Blake's gravitas.

Mmmmm, wait for the Cup matches....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rennmaus said:

I do remember something similar, but am not sure which AC, and which team was affected. There was a bit of a shitstorm here on SA at that time.

Pretty sure it was Alinghi and ETNZ in Valencia 07

Edit: found a link, happened first in Valencia 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/paul-lewis-press-conferences-set-to-keep-winners-and-losers-apart/VQEOTCLJ7C2C263EQKWO3YULKA/

Edited by 45Roller
Insert link
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, strider470 said:

Speculation. Nonetheless the error was addressed. Do you have evidence of the hours of pressure and compliants? Btw if I had been Ben, I would have been upset too.

Their own statement from COR stated it was an error of judgement 

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

Correct and I have to say that I'm pleased that Dalts seems to have got the hint. He is normally far too outspoken for my liking but seems to have managed to tone it down a lot which is great.

He is undoubtedly an impressive leader (possibly better than Blake), but he lacks Blake's gravitas.

I think Dalts learnt that his outbursts are simply a distraction to the team.  He was quiet in Bermuda during racing and then let rip after they won.  It's certainly better when he is quiet.  The disappointing thing this time is he has ACE to speak through & he can't help himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 45Roller said:

Did anyone manage to record any of the TVNZ coverage of this? would like to hear what DB is like on commentary 

He didn't commentate - just gave before and after discussion.  Pretty boring tbh.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, strider470 said:

You guys are talking about an evident error that was promptly addressed. I would have liked the same behaviour and formal excuses from ACE and Mrs Tina for their not so friendly (read disgusting) tone and official comments.

Come on strider be fair

LR demand to be made winner if time ran out was very tone death to the public of New Zealand. We invested large sums of money to allow this event to occur and now we were being told you can’t watch it, because LR will not agree to extend the match. Your a fair man surely you can see how that might be upsetting from our point of view. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rennmaus said:

I do remember something similar, but am not sure which AC, and which team was affected. There was a bit of a shitstorm here on SA at that time.

Oracle let ETNZ have the stage to themselves in Bermuda and it looked fine. 
 

OR and ‘the boyz ’ went over to the ETNZ base later to congratulate and to enjoy their party. 
 

After LR beat AM 5-0 in the PC semi’s they came across the water with beer to congratulate them on a well-fought campaign. I hope Ineos did (or will do) something as gracious for LR. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 45Roller said:

Pretty sure it was Alinghi and ETNZ in Valencia 07

Edit: found a link, happened first in Valencia 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/paul-lewis-press-conferences-set-to-keep-winners-and-losers-apart/VQEOTCLJ7C2C263EQKWO3YULKA/

I asked my grandpa, and despite his alzheimer he could remember this one. Conner said to Farr, 'You little ----, you're a loser. Get out of here.'

First read this:

https://www.sail-world.com/-41765/

Then watch this:

That's how it is done properly!

I hope Grant and Tina will take on Max and Francesco, with the same but much older Bruno in the middle.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mako23 said:

Come on strider be fair

LR demand to be made winner if time ran out was very tone death to the public of New Zealand. We invested large sums of money to allow this event to occur and now we were being told you can’t watch it, because LR will not agree to extend the match. Your a fair man surely you can see how that might be upsetting from our point of view. 

That delay would have suited more INEOS than the local watchers I fear, as the British were hoping  (quite rightly I daresay) not to face Luna Rossa in light winds. LR too invested a ludicrous amount of money in this competition, and since there was already in place a plan to cope with the different emergency levels, you can understand why they didn't accept the delay. A delay request whose real reasons where disguised by ACE. Everyone was sorry to see the village closed, but a fair competition must be guaranteed,  this was not an exhibition. Every sporting event has rules that must be followed. That said I'm sorry for the unfortunate coincidences that brought to that situation.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, mako23 said:

Come on strider be fair

LR demand to be made winner if time ran out was very tone death to the public of New Zealand. We invested large sums of money to allow this event to occur and now we were being told you can’t watch it, because LR will not agree to extend the match. Your a fair man surely you can see how that might be upsetting from our point of view. 

That's a misrepresentation of what happened. LR didn't want to alter the schedule because it was possible to stick to the existing schedule and race, as has been shown. They didn't "demand to be made winner", they stated what the rules were if ACE didn't get on wth the racing and time ran out.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, strider470 said:

You guys are talking about an evident error that was promptly addressed. I would have liked the same behaviour and formal excuses from ACE and Mrs Tina for their not so friendly (read disgusting) tone and official comments.

Obviously not too promptly for Ben.! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, strider470 said:

That delay would have suited more INEOS than the local watchers I fear, as the British were hoping  (quite rightly I daresay) not to face Luna Rossa in light winds. LR too invested a ludicrous amount of money in this competition, and since there was already in place a plan to cope with the different emergency levels, you can understand why they didn't accept the delay. A delay request whose real reasons where disguised by ACE. Everyone was sorry to see the village closed, but a fair competition must be guaranteed,  this was not an exhibition. Every sporting event has rules that must be followed. That said I'm sorry for the unfortunate coincidences that brought to that situation.

I don’t think the ACE letter was well written, it should of been more diplomatic. However LR the rules are the rules statement could of been handled with more diplomacy. I don’t think It was a wise move by LR because if they said nothing they would of still won without any diplomatic fallout. What I fear if, is the situation is reversed where ETNZ was leading and Covid struck again. ETNz could say no extension we have won the cup.......rules are the rules. I wouldn’t support ETNZ doing that. Also LR couldn’t complain because they have already stated that the rules are the rules. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mako23 said:

I don’t think the ACE letter was well written, it should of been more diplomatic. However LR the rules are the rules statement could of been handled with more diplomacy. I don’t think It was a wise move by LR because if they said nothing they would of still won without any diplomatic fallout. What I fear if, is the situation is reversed where ETNZ was leading and Covid struck again. ETNz could say no extension we have won the cup.......rules are the rules. I wouldn’t support ETNZ doing that. Also LR couldn’t complain because they have already stated that the rules are the rules. 

But mind that LR did want to race, not the contrary. This is the point. LR had to use leverage with ACE to force them doing what they had to, by the rules.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mako23 said:

Come on strider be fair

LR demand to be made winner if time ran out was very tone death to the public of New Zealand. We invested large sums of money to allow this event to occur and now we were being told you can’t watch it, because LR will not agree to extend the match. Your a fair man surely you can see how that might be upsetting from our point of view. 

LR didn't demand anything. ACE wanted to change the rules (for reasons only they know, because I'm pretty sure to wasn't to do Auckland boaters a favor). Probably ETNZ needing more time to process the scary data they were gathering from Luna Rossa and prepare their boat better.

LR just told them to stick to the rules, just like they did in 2003.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mako23 said:

What I fear if, is the situation is reversed where ETNZ was leading and Covid struck again. ETNz could say no extension we have won the cup.......rules are the rules. I wouldn’t support ETNZ doing that. Also LR couldn’t complain because they have already stated that the rules are the rules. 

Those rules are different though, pay attention!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mako23 said:

I don’t think the ACE letter was well written, it should of been more diplomatic. 

It was typically attack-dog, that missive by Tina and ACE. It should have ended at the first paragraph where they announced to start racing on Saturday -  instead of going on to try throw ‘sportsmanship’ insults at Prada.. Snakepit down there in Auckland ... and for what? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, strider470 said:

But mind that LR did want to race, not the contrary. This is the point. LR had to use leverage with ACE to force them doing what they had to, by the rules.

I’m not denying that .....However if your playing the rules are the rules games,  it can work against you as well. It’s a two edge sword, it can cut both ways. If a serious Covid breakout the government could Ban all racing for public safety. If ETNZ was leading at the time they could say the rules are the rules no extensions. Which was exactly what LR was saying, if LR was leading they could say the same thing 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

It was typically attack-dog, that missive by Tina and ACE. It should have ended at the first paragraph where they announced to start racing on Saturday -  instead of going on to try throw ‘sportsmanship’ insults at Prada.. Snakepit down there in Auckland ... and for what? 

Thank you for you unhinged input stinger. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fiji Bitter said:

I asked my grandpa, and despite his alzheimer he could remember this one. Conner said to Farr, 'You little ----, you're a loser. Get out of here.'

First read this:

https://www.sail-world.com/-41765/

Then watch this:

That's how it is done properly!

I hope Grant and Tina will take on Max and Francesco, with the same but much older Bruno in the middle.

 

Dennis payed dearly for these comments. Many corporate sponsors didn’t want anything to do with him, because they feared what he would say. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, idontwan2know said:

I tend to think the penalties aren't punitive enough currently...it removes some of the drama and I can easily see lots of situations under the current rules where a boat would decide it's easier to take the penalty than actually position their boat the way the rules are designed to constrain them. That's not fair to the ROW boat.

While I get that penalty turns are probably too far in the other direction, I'd point out that with the last couple monohull cycles the penalties were a very big deal and it was pretty rare for a boat to be able to clear a penalty via turns and still win.

The answer lies in AC RRS 60.4(b):

When the umpires decide that a yacht has gained an advantage by breaking a rule after allowing for a penalty…..
she shall be penalised under Rule 44.1 (b), [by a 50 metre penalty], or under Rule 44.1(c), by disqualification.

A DSQ under 44.1(c) would be for an extreme case, such as deliberately breaking a rule. In normal racing, deliberately breaking a rule renders a yacht liable to protest under Rule 2 (Unfair Sailing), the normal penalty for which would a DNE (Disqualification non-excludable). In a best-of-X series of match races a DNE would be meaningless.

In the hypothetical situation of a boat starting several seconds early and the other boat also being OCS, the first boat would be taking a risk, for the jury might judge its OCS as deliberate. The situation after the start of Race 5 was that Ineos gained an advantage after taking their first penalty for barging in. From watching the replay on the LR stern feed it is clear that Spithill reminded the jury about the gaining-advantage rule more than once, and Ineos was given a second penalty, ensuring that it did not benefit from having gained the favoured right-hand side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, mako23 said:

Thank you for you unhinged input stinger. 

Who was unhinged, now? Maybe try answer the q that I posed: 

‘For what?’ For what reason is ACE being so constantly attack-dog in their missives? What on earth purpose is it supposed to serve? 

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

Who was unhinged, now? Maybe try answer the q that I posed: 

‘For what?’ 

Calling Auckland a snake pit was unhinged. May I remind you that your country is an easy target at the moment. I don’t go slagging of your country. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Yet I don’t because it’s the wrong thing to do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mako23 said:

Calling Auckland a snake pit was unhinged. May I remind you that your country is an easy target at the moment. I don’t go slagging of your country. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Yet I don’t because it’s the wrong thing to do. 

Nice diversion attempt but:

We are discussing a sailboat race, organized by ETNZ’s own-controlled ACE. Why do they behave like attack-dogs? What purpose does it serve? 

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

Nice diversion attempt but:

We are discussing a sailboat race, organized by ETNZ’s own-controlled ACE. Why do they behave like attack-dogs? What purpose does it serve? 

No.  COR has arranged all Prada Cup racing to date.

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

No.  COR has arranged all Prada Cup racing to date.

Despite the attempt by ACE to F with the CSS schedule.. With completely unnecessary shots taken at the COR during that attempt? 
 

It will be lost in the wake, I just hope there was a lesson learned from that PR fiasco and that the tone will improve. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, mako23 said:

Dennis payed dearly for these comments. Many corporate sponsors didn’t want anything to do with him, because they feared what he would say. 

Could be, but when I last talked to him in San Diego he could still afford the whiskey. And was slightly abusive, normal, never mind that...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JJD said:

No.  COR has arranged all Prada Cup racing to date.

I don't really care much about this debate, but CoR and RNZYS jointly approved all of the dates of the CSS and, more importantly, all of the provisions regarding who the winner of the CSS would be if the racing were not completed by 2/24.  Yes, the CoR ran the Prada Cup, but the dates and the hard end of 2/24 were jointly agreed by CoR/D  

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

Nice diversion attempt but:

We are discussing a sailboat race, organized by ETNZ’s own-controlled ACE. Why do they behave like attack-dogs? What purpose does it serve? 

Nope. CoR is responsible for organisation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, not from this world said:

Not every country has it as bad as you....

Irrelevant. Check the NZ tier 2 rules. Distancing requirements = no hugging of strangers. Or are you suggesting guests in a country should ignore its government’s laws?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jaysper said:

The initial schedule excluding INEOS was pretty fucking tone deaf.

I'm no fan of Ben but he was well justified in being upset.

The difference is that I wouldn't have gone and had a whinge to the media.

Whatever happened to the pommy stuff upper lip?

Why would the media interview you instead of Ben?

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

Cos I'm fucking awesome. Just ask my mum.

Now I have to drink with you an interview your Mum...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

Despite the attempt by ACE to F with the CSS schedule.. With completely unnecessary shots taken at the COR during that attempt? 
 

It will be lost in the wake, I just hope there was a lesson learned from that PR fiasco and that the tone will improve. 

All this aggression from you must because your boat lost again !!!  Don’t worry stinger you boat was the fastest in a straight line 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, accnick said:

What if one OCS boat crosses 6 seconds (pick any number) before the other  OCS boat, and in a better tactical position? Is it right to just offset the penalties in that case?

 

Yeah, I kinda agree, but if you go over early, you don't have much to complain about, so if the other is over early, you just don't go over early.

In general, it seemed like the boats were getting back to the start line early most of the time and that seems like a problem. In most boats, slowing down isn't so much of a problem, but these boats don't really do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, accnick said:

What if one OCS boat crosses 6 seconds (pick any number) before the other  OCS boat, and in a better tactical position? Is it right to just offset the penalties in that case?

 

I'm sure that was what they were thinking when the wrote 44.4C

They just didn't prescribe what should happen :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nroose said:

Yeah, I kinda agree, but if you go over early, you don't have much to complain about, so if the other is over early, you just don't go over early.

In general, it seemed like the boats were getting back to the start line early most of the time and that seems like a problem. In most boats, slowing down isn't so much of a problem, but these boats don't really do that.

What's the formula the judges use to determine the penalty?.... Distance over the line or speed at time of penalty or a formulae of both.  .... Or a guess?

 

I'm picking guess

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Baconator said:

What's the formula the judges use to determine the penalty?.... Distance over the line or speed at time of penalty or a formulae of both.  .... Or a guess?

 

I'm picking guess

 

Huh?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mako23 said:

I don’t think the ACE letter was well written, it should of been more diplomatic. However LR the rules are the rules statement could of been handled with more diplomacy. I don’t think It was a wise move by LR because if they said nothing they would of still won without any diplomatic fallout. What I fear if, is the situation is reversed where ETNZ was leading and Covid struck again. ETNz could say no extension we have won the cup.......rules are the rules. I wouldn’t support ETNZ doing that. Also LR couldn’t complain because they have already stated that the rules are the rules. 

Come on now.  The NZ government had approved racing to take place under the local Covid restrictions.  ACE wanted it another way and dragged their feet in getting it started and insulted the the COR by saying they had no respect for the host country.  The only reason it ballooned up into a PR problem was because ACE chose it make it an issue.  One side created a false narrative and tried to smear mud on the face of the team that wouldn't do what they wanted.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, nroose said:

Huh?

Ben got a twenty metre penalty for OCS but he could be doing 40 knots while spittle was just OCS doing 28knots. 

20 meters was a soft penalty compared to the gain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, The_Alchemist said:

Come on now.  The NZ government had approved racing to take place under the local Covid restrictions. 

Under Level 2 yes... Level 3 required an application for exemption... even LR/CoR state this...

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Baconator said:

Ben got a twenty metre penalty for OCS but he could be doing 40 knots while spittle was just OCS doing 28knots. 

20 meters was a soft penalty compared to the gain.

What race are you talking about?  Jimmy won... Partly because Ben had to give up a bunch of distance in the race in which they were both over the line. I kinda think it's unfair that if they are both OCS, it gets cancelled, but I also think that if you are OCS, you don't get to decide whether the other boat gets a tiny advantage from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_Alchemist said:

“Come on now.  The NZ government had approved racing to take place under the local Covid restrictions. “
got any evidence of that the law in NZ says different 

“ACE wanted it another way and dragged their feet in getting it started and insulted the the COR by saying they had no respect for the host country. “
COR did insult the Host country  and the NZ public did feel insulted. I was highly annoyed at what COR did. They said racing was safe...it’s not up to them to decide if it’s safe ....it’s the NZ government...Such arrogance from COR

“The only reason it ballooned up into a PR problem was because ACE chose it make it an issue.”

By trying forcing racing at L3 we would had to relax our laws....with out  a waiver racing would of been breaking the law if NZ. Showing no respect for the safety of NZ public 

 One side created a false narrative and tried to smear mud on the face of the team that wouldn't do what they wanted.

Your myopic view....You and Stinger hate NZ 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, rh3000 said:

Under Level 2 yes... Level 3 required an application for exemption... even LR/CoR state this...

Do tell them that...they obviously know more about the country than we do

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

I asked my grandpa, and despite his alzheimer he could remember this one. Conner said to Farr, 'You little ----, you're a loser. Get out of here.'

First read this:

https://www.sail-world.com/-41765/

Then watch this:

That's how it is done properly!

I hope Grant and Tina will take on Max and Francesco, with the same but much older Bruno in the middle.

 

Yeah that was classic AC right there, thanks for posting it

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mako23 said:

the NZ public did feel insulted. I was highly annoyed at what COR did. They said racing was safe...it’s not up to them to decide if it’s safe ....it’s the NZ government...Such arrogance from COR

By trying forcing racing at L3 we would had to relax our laws....with out  a waiver racing would of been breaking the law if NZ. Showing no respect for the safety of NZ public 

It is unfortunate that you and other NZers felt insulted. But i think the whole world is a bit wound up at the moment and it's easy to fall victim to false narratives and suffer from a bit of concocted outrage.

The agreed protocol for L3 was too ask for an exemption. The government could still say no, but all parties agreed to try. If there was concern for spectators/safety with that approach then somebody should have thought of that before the racing started and before the forecast was known for the next week.

Then there is the outage that LRPP dared protest another boat when they saw it might not comply with the rules. Yet they had already had their own boat challenged (back stays) before racing and again during racing (head sail trimming).

Even the BA press conference outrage appears to be a little concocted. I think it is silly to exclude the runner up, but it turns out that was done in several other cup cycles, so it was not without precedent. CoR changed the plan when it became apparent that it wasn't situated this time around.  Yes a bit of a WTF moment, but hardly a "I've never been so insulted" thing.

I think people just want to get angry at something, anything... and others are more than happy to feed the beast.

I don't doubt you felt "highly annoyed", but I invite you to step back and really try to consider the other side. Is there genuine insult or perhaps a touch of partisan bias resulting in a choice to be insulted?

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mako23 said:

I’m not denying that .....However if your playing the rules are the rules games,  it can work against you as well. It’s a two edge sword, it can cut both ways. If a serious Covid breakout the government could Ban all racing for public safety. If ETNZ was leading at the time they could say the rules are the rules no extensions. Which was exactly what LR was saying, if LR was leading they could say the same thing 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but unlike the Prada Cup, the AC Match has not such a time limit and they have to continue day by day until the end. (Someone better informed maybe can give a confirmation or a correction) But then, the rules are rules, and whatever will be will be. And again, in the Prada Cup there was not an outbreak of Covid that resulted in a severe lockdown, but they reached a level (2) well foreseen in the agreement, and well in advance planned).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, strider470 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but unlike the Prada Cup, the AC Match has not such a time limit and they have to continue day by day until the end. (Someone better informed maybe can give a confirmation or a correction) But then, the rules are rules, and whatever will be will be. And again, in the Prada Cup there was not an outbreak of Covid that resulted in a severe lockdown, but they reached a level (2) well foreseen in the agreement, and well in advance planned).

You may be correct strider on the America’s cup has to continue, my point still remains if you state “the rules are the rules” mantra you open it up for it being used against you as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, sfigone said:

It is unfortunate that you and other NZers felt insulted.

There are plenty of NZers that felt disappointment that we had insulted a team that has always been respectable. What ACE did was just wrong and Prada deserve an apology.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mako23 said:

You may be correct strider on the America’s cup has to continue, my point still remains if you state “the rules are the rules” mantra you open it up for it being used against you as well. 

So are you claiming that Prada would moan and complain if they had to follow the rules? Wow, talk about trying to find a way to justify our own abysmal behaviour.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get the point of the rules being used "for" or "against" somebody.
The point, in every sport, are the rules: they define the sport itself, and that's it.
It just doesn't exist anything like using "the rules against" some competitor; but there are competitors that infringe them, or just put themselves in bad spot because of not taking the rules in the right account.

I can also spot a pretty big cultural and historical gap here: most of the anglo-saxon world have the "common law", something way too far from the latin, written laws approach.
The very idea of changing the rules "on the spot" (even if the parts involved agree) is pretty far from our latin, write-everything-down-in-fourhundreds-copy-and-sign-it-twice-a-page approach. :D

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gissie said:

So are you claiming that Prada would moan and complain if they had to follow the rules? Wow, talk about trying to find a way to justify our own abysmal behaviour.

What abysmal Behaviour

the govt ?

ETNZ ?

ACE ?

Me ?

You ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Thewas said:

I still don't get the point of the rules being used "for" or "against" somebody.
The point, in every sport, are the rules: they define the sport itself, and that's it.
It just doesn't exist anything like using "the rules against" some competitor; but there are competitors that infringe them, or just put themselves in bad spot because of not taking the rules in the right account.

I can also spot a pretty big cultural and historical gap here: most of the anglo-saxon world have the "common law", something way too far from the latin, written laws approach.
The very idea of changing the rules "on the spot" (even if the parts involved agree) is pretty far from our latin, write-everything-down-in-fourhundreds-copy-and-sign-it-twice-a-page approach. :D

The AC is being held in an Anglo Saxon country 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Gissie said:

There are plenty of NZers that felt disappointment that we had insulted a team that has always been respectable. What ACE did was just wrong and Prada deserve an apology.

 

Your view is a minority in this country 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, mako23 said:

You may be correct strider on the America’s cup has to continue, my point still remains if you state “the rules are the rules” mantra you open it up for it being used against you as well. 

That's not mantra, it's sport. I would rather lose by the rules than win in other ways that suit me better. The Dark Side is quicker, easier, more seductive.. If once you start down the dark path forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will as it did Grant Dalton's apprentice :D

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

The only complaining worthy of note is that daddy Prada is having a sook that the NZ gov won’t give his little boy exemptions on entry. 

bla bla bla

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dullers said:

Now I have to drink with you an interview your Mum...

Better yet, drink with, Jays Mum and interview him (if you must). ;-)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites