Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Gissie said:

“Personally I think they would take it on the chin and concede defeat.” If ETNZ ruthless used the rules to win I don’t think Prada will take  it on the chin 

“You think they would try and change the rules in an effort to gain an unfair advantage.”

When did I say that ?

“Most likely because that is how you would behave and so expect your rivals to behave the same. Sad really.”

A leap with no real logic just your gut feeling with  no evidence 

 

  • Downvote 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

1 hour ago, strider470 said:

That's not mantra, it's sport. I would rather lose by the rules than win in other ways that suit me better. 

That’s not what I was talking about. I would ever support the idea that rules should be broken.

The ruthless exploitation of the rules to hinder an opponents  psychology is what I’m against. A classical example is Prada protest against Ineos hole in the sail. Prada knew Ineos did not get an advantage from this, but protested to cause pressure on Ben Ainslie. I for one thought that was not a good thing to do. 
Sometimes a team can take the high ground and not look through the rule books to cause problems. It’s called good sportsmanship 

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

That’s not what I was talking about. I would ever support the idea that rules should be broken.

The ruthless exploitation of the rules to hinder an opponents  psychology is what I’m against. A classical example is Prada protest against Ineos hole in the sail. Prada knew Ineos did not get an advantage from this, but protested to cause pressure on Ben Ainslie. I for one thought that was not a good thing to do. 
Sometimes a team can take the high ground and not look through the rule books to cause problems. It’s called good sportsmanship 

Look, Prada did protest and the MC found they were right in doing so, and then they decided that, since it was not a performance gain, they only get a yellow without any other consequence. Maybe you are not aware that also the Brits, recently protested Luna Rossa, and the MC dismissed quickly the accusation. So, what are we talking about, this is the game of sailing, and part of the game is that your boat must be compliant with the class rules. Now you telling me that it is not good sportsmanship to protest if you see an irregularity in your opponent is farcical. (I don't know if the word farcical is appropriate, but it sounds good) ;)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, strider470 said:

Maybe you are not aware that also the Brits, recently protested Luna Rossa, and the MC dismissed quickly the accusation.

Actually the MC ruled they couldn't rule because LR wouldn't fit the extra cameras required.

*edit* I mis-remembered, LRPP refused to fit the extra cameras requested, but based on verbal interviews they ruled it was in compliance.

https://docs.google.com/a/acofficials.org/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YWNvZmZpY2lhbHMub3JnfGFjMzYtb2ZmaWNpYWwtbm90aWNlYm9hcmR8Z3g6MTIzYWM4YzI1YWU4OWMxMQ

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

Actually the MC ruled they couldn't rule because LR wouldn't fit the extra cameras required.

On this, I don't know. I take your words for good. I understood that the evidence provided in the protest was very weak, if not evidence at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, strider470 said:

On this, I don't know. I take your words for good. I understood that the evidence provided in the protest was very weak, if not evidence at all.

I mis-remembered, see edit, but yes the measurement committee found that they couldn't force LR to have cameras to observe and found no evidence otherwise

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

I mis-remembered, see edit, but yes the measurement committee found that they couldn't force LR to have cameras to observe and found no evidence otherwise

We have tv shots from which we can see the color of Jimmy's underwear, it sounds strange that they can't find evidence of anything. But as I said, I am not well informed on the details. So I'm not going to say something that could be proved wrong.

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

Actually the MC ruled they couldn't rule because LR wouldn't fit the extra cameras required.

*edit* I mis-remembered, LRPP refused to fit the extra cameras requested, but based on verbal interviews they ruled it was in compliance.

https://docs.google.com/a/acofficials.org/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YWNvZmZpY2lhbHMub3JnfGFjMzYtb2ZmaWNpYWwtbm90aWNlYm9hcmR8Z3g6MTIzYWM4YzI1YWU4OWMxMQ

MC Are you cheating?

PRADA erm no.

MC can you fit cameras so we can check please? The other team have so we can see there is nothing to hide.

PRADA er no you can take our word for it..

MC ok have a nice race... 

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

MC Are you cheating?

PRADA erm no.

MC can you fit cameras so we can check please? The other team have so we can see there is nothing to hide.

PRADA er no you can take our word for it..

MC ok have a nice race... 

They have been probably corrupted by the Italian mafia, and the MC found a horse head in their bed.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JALhazmat said:

MC Are you cheating?

PRADA erm no.

MC can you fit cameras so we can check please? The other team have so we can see there is nothing to hide.

PRADA er no you can take our word for it..

MC ok have a nice race... 

Sometimes I wonder if you are simplistic by nature, or willingly misinformed.

The Chief Measurer asked the Co-Design Coordinator on the morning of 20 February 2021 what legitimate questions ITA had. Until now, he received no response.The Measurement Committee determines that there is no rule that requires a Competitor to carry a visual recording device for any purpose other than recording a CIS deviceor as a part of supplied media equipment.In regards to claim (1) The Measurement Committee has interviewed the headsail trimmers at 18:50 on 20 February and has also previously sought clarification as to the process the crew uses to tack and gybethe headsail.This process was discussed between the Measurement Committee and the Rules Committee on the morning of 20 February 2021. Based on the descriptions given,the Rules Committee indicated that the process was in compliance with rule 19.13(a).

The Chief Measurer arranged and observed the specific media feeds from ITA in racing on 20 February 2021 and on the tacks and gybes observed, the process was as described by ITA.The Measurement Committee finds that this first claim (1) is unfounded as there is no evidence of any rules breach.In regards to claim (2) GBR provided a photo (that the Measurement Committee believes was published on Facebook) that shows a removable deck fairing on the ITA yacht.The deck fairing partially covers each headsail winch.The Measurement Committee considersthat fairings or similar structures that cover winches are aerodynamicfairings for the winch and not aerodynamic fairings for the crew. As such the limitation of 0.025 m2as outlined in 12.11 (c)isapplicable.When loading and unloading the winch, the crew on the ITA yacht are not covered by this fairing by more than 0.025m2.The Measurement Committee determines that the action of loading and unloading the headsail winch is in compliance with AC75 Class Rule 12.11(c) and therefore this claim (2) is unfounded.

CNC 02.pdf

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, strider470 said:

Look, Prada did protest and the MC found they were right in doing so, and then they decided that, since it was not a performance gain, they only get a yellow without any other consequence. Maybe you are not aware that also the Brits, recently protested Luna Rossa, and the MC dismissed quickly the accusation. So, what are we talking about, this is the game of sailing, and part of the game is that your boat must be compliant with the class rules. Now you telling me that it is not good sportsmanship to protest if you see an irregularity in your opponent is farcical. (I don't know if the word farcical is appropriate, but it sounds good) ;)

It’s not good sportsmanship to use lawyers for loopholes to attack your opponent. In what way were Prada harmed by the tiny hole in Ineos sail. What Prada did was pure Machiavellianism

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

It’s not good sportsmanship to use lawyers for loopholes to attack your opponent. In what way were harmed by the tiny hole in Ineos sail. What Prada did was pure Machiavellianism

Mako, I like you, and I cannot (and won't) force you on a different opinion. I respect that but I dissent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, strider470 said:

Mako, I like you, but I cannot (and won't) force you on a different opinion. I respect that but I dissent.

For what is worth I respect you too

We can agree to disagree 

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

run out of likes. But I like

The issue I have with Prada has no correlation with my feeling towards Italy

I love Italy and have been treaded wonderfully well by the people while there. I like the food  culture and the Wine. At one stage I even considered living there. As a UK citizen I did have the right, that’s sadly gone with Brexit. When I’m going back to the UK to see family and friends I do intend to go to visit again. 
 

Also stay safe I’m aware of how hard Lombard has been hit with Covid 

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

The issue I have with Prada has no correlation with my feeling towards Italy

I love Italy and have been treaded wonderfully well by the people while there. I like the food  culture and the Wine. At one stage I even considered living there. As a UK citizen I did have the right, that’s sadly gone with Brexit. When I’m going back to the UK to see family and friends I do intend to go to visit again. 

I know, no need to say that. Sometimes people transcend the sport event here. Maybe it's part of the fun. I don't know.

When you will return here we'll have a beer together!

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

Also stay safe I’m aware of how hard Lombard has been hit with Covid 

All across Europe, people are longing for a breath of normality. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Piet56 said:

Dullers - she could be a "Hottie"...... just sayin.....

Anyone is a hottie including you after 2 pints.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours 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 ;)

All the bits, or just some? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 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?

 

They made a mistake offsetting the penalties. That has been well discussed.  The rules say that if both boats are ocs then both have to take a penalty.

The boat 6 secs behind will have an advantage in that case because they can take the penalty first and then the other boat would have to subsequently take the penalty.

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

Sometimes I wonder if you are simplistic by nature, or willingly misinformed.

The Chief Measurer asked the Co-Design Coordinator on the morning of 20 February 2021 what legitimate questions ITA had. Until now, he received no response.The Measurement Committee determines that there is no rule that requires a Competitor to carry a visual recording device for any purpose other than recording a CIS deviceor as a part of supplied media equipment.In regards to claim (1) The Measurement Committee has interviewed the headsail trimmers at 18:50 on 20 February and has also previously sought clarification as to the process the crew uses to tack and gybethe headsail.This process was discussed between the Measurement Committee and the Rules Committee on the morning of 20 February 2021. Based on the descriptions given,the Rules Committee indicated that the process was in compliance with rule 19.13(a).

The Chief Measurer arranged and observed the specific media feeds from ITA in racing on 20 February 2021 and on the tacks and gybes observed, the process was as described by ITA.The Measurement Committee finds that this first claim (1) is unfounded as there is no evidence of any rules breach.In regards to claim (2) GBR provided a photo (that the Measurement Committee believes was published on Facebook) that shows a removable deck fairing on the ITA yacht.The deck fairing partially covers each headsail winch.The Measurement Committee considersthat fairings or similar structures that cover winches are aerodynamicfairings for the winch and not aerodynamic fairings for the crew. As such the limitation of 0.025 m2as outlined in 12.11 (c)isapplicable.When loading and unloading the winch, the crew on the ITA yacht are not covered by this fairing by more than 0.025m2.The Measurement Committee determines that the action of loading and unloading the headsail winch is in compliance with AC75 Class Rule 12.11(c) and therefore this claim (2) is unfounded.

CNC 02.pdf

Ffs it was a simplified humorous summary of the version you posted above.

both versions one being a shortened humorous one, yours being the literal version reached the same conclusion. 

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

That’s not what I was talking about. I would ever support the idea that rules should be broken.

The ruthless exploitation of the rules to hinder an opponents  psychology is what I’m against. A classical example is Prada protest against Ineos hole in the sail. Prada knew Ineos did not get an advantage from this, but protested to cause pressure on Ben Ainslie. I for one thought that was not a good thing to do. 
Sometimes a team can take the high ground and not look through the rule books to cause problems. It’s called good sportsmanship 

 

1 hour ago, mako23 said:

It’s not good sportsmanship to use lawyers for loopholes to attack your opponent. In what way were Prada harmed by the tiny hole in Ineos sail. What Prada did was pure Machiavellianism

In motorsports we ask the question "Why is it there if not for performance enhancement?"

If an illegal feature is there to allow legal features to work, it stays illegal, even if in itself it has no influence on the performance.

If an illegal feature is there to make things easier (e.g. to allow for better access to a legal part), even if in itself it has no influence on the performance, it stays illegal. 

Apparently this is different in sailing. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JALhazmat said:

Ffs it was a simplified humorous summary of the version you posted above.

both versions one being a shortened humorous one, yours being the literal version reached the same conclusion. 

Ok my bad, sorry :)

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

The ruthless exploitation of the rules to hinder an opponents  psychology is what I’m against.

You mean, that an AC team should not protest when they can ? It's not a regular boat race, it's the AC.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

 

In motorsports we ask the question "Why is it there if not for performance enhancement?"

If an illegal feature is there to allow legal features to work, it stays illegal, even if in itself it has no influence on the performance.

If an illegal feature is there to make things easier (e.g. to allow for better access to a legal part), even if in itself it has no influence on the performance, it stays illegal. 

Apparently this is different in sailing. 

F1 is riddled with inconsistencies in this regard, some infractions have not been published. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with an idiot.

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

F1 is riddled with inconsistencies in this regard, some infractions have not been published. 

Inconsistencies exist because Rules still need to be interpreted.  My shade of grey may not be the same as your shade of grey.

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

Inconsistencies exist because Rules still need to be interpreted.  My shade of grey may not be the same as your shade of grey.

Everyone gets the shades they deserve

shades.thumb.JPG.46e850a04e5b3aa4e4161b6324349f3e.JPG

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

The Match has to be finished by 1 May per DoG.

Dunno what they put in the Protocol.

Last reserve day is 3/21, although the Match Conditions say "If the Match is not completed prior to March 15 then racing will continue every day until completion."

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

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.

 

It seems bizarre but the rules. agreed way in advance of the final, showed a protocol for only the winners attending the Press Conference. So it seems it was agreed in advance. I don't think it was the right thing to do and it makes me wonder did anyone read the rules in advance.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Paddywackery said:

This geo-blocking is a pain in the arse.

Sure is mate, I'm working on it tho, will let you know how I get on 

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

Ffs it was a simplified humorous summary of the version you posted above.

both versions one being a shortened humorous one, yours being the literal version reached the same conclusion. 

Well your version did through a bit of shade LR's way.  My summary would have the shadow going the other way:

RITA We think PRADA are cheating 

MC We've checked and PRADA are not cheating

RITA But we have cameras to prove we are not cheating and they don't

MC Hey PRADA, RITA has cameras that prove they are not cheating like they say you are cheating

PRADA good for them

MC Hey RITA, PRADA doesn't have cameras and there is no requirement for cameras and we doubled check and they are still not cheating

RITA Never mind, I'll go shirt front an old guy at an inappropriate time instead!

 

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

So it seems it was agreed in advance.

Agreed? Perhaps 'known' in advance but Ineos never agreed with it (evidently).

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

Well your version did through a bit of shade LR's way.  My summary would have the shadow going the other way:

RITA We think PRADA are cheating 

MC We've checked and PRADA are not cheating

RITA But we have cameras to prove we are not cheating and they don't

MC Hey PRADA, RITA has cameras that prove they are not cheating like they say you are cheating

PRADA good for them

MC Hey RITA, PRADA doesn't have cameras and there is no requirement for cameras and we doubled check and they are still not cheating

RITA Never mind, I'll go shirt front an old guy at an inappropriate time instead!

 

Hmm  apart from the bit where we  (Prada) can’t be forced to have cameras and therefore you have to take our word for it cos we wouldn’t in any way tell a fib to get away with something

your last point? No shirt was fronted or has anything to do with the aero covering of the winches, good attempt at deflection though ;-) 

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

your last point? No shirt was fronted or has anything to do with the aero covering of the winches, good attempt at deflection though ;-) 

FFS it was a simplified humorous summary :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2021 at 1:12 PM, Fiji Bitter said:

Several non Italians got the boot when Covid hit. Esquier must have been too expensive while things grinded to a halt.

A victim of his own policies, if I may say so.

 

And very few tears were shed over that one I bet.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rh3000 said:

Agreed? Perhaps 'known' in advance but Ineos never agreed with it (evidently).

My understanding is that all of the competitors agreed to it along with all manner of different stuff governing the event. Ben may not have known or agreed to it but his team did. 

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

   14 hours 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 

Classic childish reply is to assume the we hate NZ.  Nothing could be farther from the truth, I have some disdain for the forever fanboys that do not live in reality.

It is difficult to have a serious conversation with you when you won't even admit the facts, and ask silly question that are not based in reality.

NZ went into a level 3 lockdown and relaxed to a level 2 after missing only one race in the Prada Cup finals.  ACE wanted to postpone the Prada Cup all the way to the 26th (a week and a half longer).  LR pushed back and wanted to follow the established schedule since it was already in conformance with the NZ Covid restrictions.  It was ACE that was going rogue and wanting to establish a totally new schedule.

You need to calm down and channel your hate into something more constructive.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The_Alchemist said:

Classic childish reply is to assume the we hate NZ.  Nothing could be farther from the truth, I have some disdain for the forever fanboys that do not live in reality.

It is difficult to have a serious conversation with you when you won't even admit the facts, and ask silly question that are not based in reality.

NZ went into a level 3 lockdown and relaxed to a level 2 after missing only one race in the Prada Cup finals.  ACE wanted to postpone the Prada Cup all the way to the 26th (a week and a half longer).  LR pushed back and wanted to follow the established schedule since it was already in conformance with the NZ Covid restrictions.  It was ACE that was going rogue and wanting to establish a totally new schedule.

You need to calm down and channel your hate into something more constructive.

Ironically they were prepared to wait until L1 before they held their trophy celebration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetically, if the series was postponed until the 26th as ACE wanted, what would the repercussions have been? Given the circumstances and the reasoning for the postponement, it seems perfectly reasonable for ACE to suggest a postponement. After all, ACE has a HVA with considerations to take into account. It also seems perfectly reasonable, for competitive reasons, for LR to want to continue. The question is, does cutting fans out of the event, purely for competitive reasons, do the event or the sport any favours? I would say No. It does set a precedent for future CoRs to ignore any and all spectator/ fan based involvement, to concentrate purely on competitive motivation. How many host venues are going to want to host an event that no longer takes fans into consideration? 

Second point is, LR may have achieved their goal of winning the Challenger Series, but also may have shot themselves in the foot for a future defence by seemingly cutting fans out of the event, especially if they’re planning on having Alinghi as a CoR who have made no secret of their love of stadium sailing, and have also lost their position as CoR if ETNZ wins. 

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

Hypothetically, if the series was postponed until the 26th as ACE wanted, what would the repercussions have been? Given the circumstances and the reasoning for the postponement, it seems perfectly reasonable for ACE to suggest a postponement. After all, ACE has a HVA with considerations to take into account. It also seems perfectly reasonable, for competitive reasons, for LR to want to continue. The question is, does cutting fans out of the event, purely for competitive reasons, do the event or the sport any favours? I would say No. It does set a precedent for future CoRs to ignore any and all spectator/ fan based involvement, to concentrate purely on competitive motivation. How many host venues are going to want to host an event that no longer takes fans into consideration? 

Second point is, LR may have achieved their goal of winning the Challenger Series, but also may have shot themselves in the foot for a future defence by seemingly cutting fans out of the event, especially if they’re planning on having Alinghi as a CoR who have made no secret of their love of stadium sailing, and have also lost their position as CoR if ETNZ wins. 

That's a stretch.  Merely because LRPP did not want to delay the Prada Cup doesn't really suggest that LRPP is somehow against having fans involved in the AC.  Indeed, as CoR, LRPP was instrumental in crafting the Protocol and Match Conditions, which are at their core designed with fans in mind (as noted by He Who Must Not Be Named in another thread): to wit, the races are on short courses near land as opposed to off shore specifically so that fans can participate by either watching from the land or in a spectator fleet that doesn't have to travel far to see the racing.  

Rather than being a portent for things to come, this particular episode highlights the exception rather than the rule. With the past three cup cycles all done with spectators in mind, when the exception pops up due to COVID circumstances, it sticks out all the more.  But the fact that the possibility of racing for a time without fans existed and felt weird only confirms the more general truth that fans on the course have been an integral part of the AC. In other words, I haven't seen anything from any club involved in this cup that would suggest that they don't want fans involved in the AC.

Whether they should be involved is a different question.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, porthos said:

That's a stretch.  Merely because LRPP did not want to delay the Prada Cup doesn't really suggest that LRPP is somehow against having fans involved in the AC.  Indeed, as CoR, LRPP was instrumental in crafting the Protocol and Match Conditions, which are at their core designed with fans in mind (as noted by He Who Must Not Be Named in another thread): to wit, the races are on short courses near land as opposed to off shore specifically so that fans can participate by either watching from the land or in a spectator fleet that doesn't have to travel far to see the racing.  

Rather than being a portent for things to come, this particular episode highlights the exception rather than the rule. With the past three cup cycles all done with spectators in mind, when the exception pops up due to COVID circumstances, it sticks out all the more.  But the fact that the possibility of racing for a time without fans existed and felt weird only confirms the more general truth that fans on the course have been an integral part of the AC. In other words, I haven't seen anything from any club involved in this cup that would suggest that they don't want fans involved in the AC.

Whether they should be involved is a different question.  

Well it does set a precedent for future events to not need fans. It is an exception to the rule, but may well become common practice, especially if potential CoRs feel it somehow compromises their competitive prospects. Of course future events will want fans to be involved, but given LRs current hardline stance on the event proceeding behind closed doors purely for competitive reasons, those reasons could come back to haunt them. 
It’s a huge risk for LR to take, and it, along with other reasons has caused them to lose favour with ETNZ, as well as their position as future CoR. If they don’t win this Cup, they become just another Challenger with no power or rights.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dogwatch said:

I can see I'm being played here. Bye-bye.

You're not being played, I just don't buy into the hysteria of the COVID industry.

We just had a 2 week lock down for one case, just one case. Was told it was the UK variant and other cases were going to be found because it is so transmissible. Nothing. The Gov't didn't even confirm the initial positive test. So whilst I am all for sensible precautions, I am still going to live my life.

I responded directly to what you said. But if you don't have anything substantive, yours is a perfectly valid response.

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

Well it does set a precedent for future events to not need fans. It is an exception to the rule, but may well become common practice, especially if potential CoRs feel it somehow compromises their competitive prospects. Of course future events will want fans to be involved, but given LRs current hardline stance on the event proceeding behind closed doors purely for competitive reasons, those reasons could come back to haunt them. 
It’s a huge risk for LR to take, and it, along with other reasons has caused them to lose favour with ETNZ, as well as their position as future CoR. If they don’t win this Cup, they become just another Challenger with no power or rights.

I suppose anything is possible. Whether it is likely is a different matter.  All of which is to say, while speculation is fun, it is ultimately of very little value. Of course, what else would we have to do around here if we didn't speculate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

Hypothetically, if the series was postponed until the 26th as ACE wanted, what would the repercussions have been? Given the circumstances and the reasoning for the postponement, it seems perfectly reasonable for ACE to suggest a postponement. After all, ACE has a HVA with considerations to take into account. It also seems perfectly reasonable, for competitive reasons, for LR to want to continue. The question is, does cutting fans out of the event, purely for competitive reasons, do the event or the sport any favours? I would say No. It does set a precedent for future CoRs to ignore any and all spectator/ fan based involvement, to concentrate purely on competitive motivation. How many host venues are going to want to host an event that no longer takes fans into consideration? 

Second point is, LR may have achieved their goal of winning the Challenger Series, but also may have shot themselves in the foot for a future defence by seemingly cutting fans out of the event, especially if they’re planning on having Alinghi as a CoR who have made no secret of their love of stadium sailing, and have also lost their position as CoR if ETNZ wins. 

Do you remember all the hate Grant Dalton got for agreeing to a 1 day delay in San Fran, at which time they were 8-1 up and, well lets not go into what happened next.  The learning from that for all America's Cup CEOs - If you have your foot on the throat, stamp down immediately!!

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

Well it does set a precedent for future events to not need fans. It is an exception to the rule, but may well become common practice, especially if potential CoRs feel it somehow compromises their competitive prospects. Of course future events will want fans to be involved, but given LRs current hardline stance on the event proceeding behind closed doors purely for competitive reasons, those reasons could come back to haunt them. 
It’s a huge risk for LR to take, and it, along with other reasons has caused them to lose favour with ETNZ, as well as their position as future CoR. If they don’t win this Cup, they become just another Challenger with no power or rights.

Let's be clear, it not only compromised their chances, but more importantly was counter to the original agreement. 

Now if all parties agreed, fine. Otherwise go fucking race.

I was disappointed with it,  but they were within their rights.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, not from this world said:

You're not being played, I just don't buy into the hysteria of the COVID industry.

We just had a 2 week lock down for one case, just one case. Was told it was the UK variant and other cases were going to be found because it is so transmissible. Nothing. The Gov't didn't even confirm the initial positive test. So whilst I am all for sensible precautions, I am still going to live my life.

I responded directly to what you said. But if you don't have anything substantive, yours is a perfectly valid response.

My problem is that they are responding to it like it is smallpox.

It ain't, its perhaps  5 to 8 times more problematic than the flu on current stats and more people will die from starvation, lack of medicine, etc because of the response.

It will hit hard in Vietnam where my wife is from for sure, but will also hit developed countries such as the US where an increase in unemployment of 1% results in an additional 40,000 deaths. It seems that inorder to look like nice people world leaders are happy for any number of people to die as long as its not from Corona virus.

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

Ironically they were prepared to wait until L1 before they held their trophy celebration.

Ironic doesnt even begin to describe it.  Think this sums up why many (including me) are dark on them insisting on racing. The celebrations have been a cluster as far as being Covid safe. Drinking from the cup , maskless hugging, and crowding. Complete bullshit that it can be done "safely" . The Italians insisted it could be held safely, yet have demonstrated almost no Covid awareness it seems. More cases popping up in Auckland, the restrictions are not just for the poor people and the locals.

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

Classic childish reply is to assume the we hate NZ.  Nothing could be farther from the truth, I have some disdain for the forever fanboys that do not live in reality.

It is difficult to have a serious conversation with you when you won't even admit the facts, and ask silly question that are not based in reality.

NZ went into a level 3 lockdown and relaxed to a level 2 after missing only one race in the Prada Cup finals.  ACE wanted to postpone the Prada Cup all the way to the 26th (a week and a half longer).  LR pushed back and wanted to follow the established schedule since it was already in conformance with the NZ Covid restrictions.  It was ACE that was going rogue and wanting to establish a totally new schedule.

You need to calm down and channel your hate into something more constructive.

Your dislike of NZ fanboys is well known and I do seriously suggest that this had spilled over for a dislike for NZ. You have nothing positive to say about the place. I don’t mind you can hate the place as much as you want. It’s a free world world.  Also your churlish reply suggest to me that I hit a nerve, it sure triggered you. 

 

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jaysper said:

My problem is that they are responding to it like it is smallpox.

It ain't, its perhaps  5 to 8 times more problematic than the flu on current stats and more people will die from starvation, lack of medicine, etc because of the response.

It will hit hard in Vietnam where my wife is from for sure, but will also hit developed countries such as the US where an increase in unemployment of 1% results in an additional 40,000 deaths. It seems that inorder to look like nice people world leaders are happy for any number of people to die as long as its not from Corona virus.

Not to be a noodge but that 1%/40,000 dead statement was made popular by The Big Short and repeated ad nauseum during the pandemic but it really isn't even applicable.  The statistic actually came from a really old (1981) study about companies moving operations overseas and the author of the study even said it really can't be assumed to apply to the pandemic as the events are simply too different. 

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

it seems perfectly reasonable for ACE to suggest a postponement.  

No it doesn't. ACE were just a service provider for the Prada cup. It's no more reasonable for them to have got involved than it would have been for the caterers to suggest a delay.

And yes the caterers could make such a suggestion, but they'd have no right to get upset if the answer was no and their contract said they had to provide service in L2 (and try in L3)

If there was a delay until the 26th, how silly would that look now that L1 is back on the 22nd.

Let it go!

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sfigone said:

No it doesn't. ACE were just a service provider for the Prada cup. It's no more reasonable for them to have got involved than it would have been for the caterers to suggest a delay.

And yes the caterers could make such a suggestion, but they'd have no right to get upset if the answer was no and their contract said they had to provide service in L2 (and try in L3)

If there was a delay until the 26th, how silly would that look now that L1 is back on the 22nd.

Let it go!

 

 

Are you trying to convince him to change his mind? Seriously? Please don't. It's going to be a recursive discussion, SA servers will crash. :)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SiC said:

Do you remember all the hate Grant Dalton got for agreeing to a 1 day delay in San Fran, at which time they were 8-1 up and, well lets not go into what happened next.  The learning from that for all America's Cup CEOs - If you have your foot on the throat, stamp down immediately!!

 The idea that GD agreed to the days delay might be an urban legend. I remember an interview he gave a few years ago where he said he had no choice in the matter.

 

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

Do you remember all the hate Grant Dalton got for agreeing to a 1 day delay in San Fran, at which time they were 8-1 up and, well lets not go into what happened next.  The learning from that for all America's Cup CEOs - If you have your foot on the throat, stamp down immediately!!

GD had no choice but to agree. Both teams had to agree to go racing, not just one. Oracle had already said they weren’t going to race, so that was it. Decision made. No racing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, porthos said:

Not to be a noodge but that 1%/40,000 dead statement was made popular by The Big Short and repeated ad nauseum during the pandemic but it really isn't even applicable.  The statistic actually came from a really old (1981) study about companies moving operations overseas and the author of the study even said it really can't be assumed to apply to the pandemic as the events are simply too different. 

Correct. But if you fact check it, the quote comes from a real study that has been replicated in UK, Canada, Oz and NZ among others.

The quote seemed so utterly unbelievable that I checked it immediately after watching the movie.

I suggest you do the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, minimumfuss said:

Ironic doesnt even begin to describe it.  Think this sums up why many (including me) are dark on them insisting on racing. The celebrations have been a cluster as far as being Covid safe. Drinking from the cup , maskless hugging, and crowding. Complete bullshit that it can be done "safely" . The Italians insisted it could be held safely, yet have demonstrated almost no Covid awareness it seems. More cases popping up in Auckland, the restrictions are not just for the poor people and the locals.

Are any of the cases directly attributed to Prada event? 

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

Correct. But if you fact check it, the quote comes from a real study that has been replicated in UK, Canada, Oz and NZ among others.

The quote seemed so utterly unbelievable that I checked it immediately after watching the movie.

I suggest you do the same.

I did check it. That's why I posted what I did. And there are reasons why it isn't applicable to this pandemic, which is sui generis.

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

The question is, does cutting fans out of the event, purely for competitive reasons, do the event or the sport any favours?

What are you talking about???   There were so many fans out on the water watching the racing during L2 restrictions that Nathan Outteridge comment that you could walk from one end of the course to the other, boat to boat!   

There is no team cutting fans out for purely competitive reasons because there are no competitive reason for cutting fans out.    LRPP wanted to stick the the schedule for rule reasons. They didn't want to change the rules for competitive reasons.  Not changing the schedule impacted the fans a bit, but they were by no means cut out and not "purely" so.

Moreover, what you just don't understand is

Exception in thread "prada cup" java.lang.StackOverflowError
    at org.sailinganarchy.bullshit.main(MakeStuffUp.java:207)
    at org.sailinganarchy.bullshit.main(MakeStuffUp.java:207)
    at org.sailinganarchy.bullshit.main(MakeStuffUp.java:207)
    at org.sailinganarchy.bullshit.main(MakeStuffUp.java:207)
    at org.sailinganarchy.bullshit.main(MakeStuffUp.java:207)
    at org.sailinganarchy.bullshit.main(MakeStuffUp.java:207)
    at org.sailinganarchy.bullshit.main(MakeStuffUp.java:207)
    at org.sailinganarchy.bullshit.main(MakeStuffUp.java:207)
    at org.sailinganarchy.bullshit.main(MakeStuffUp.java:207)
    at org.sailinganarchy.bullshit.main(MakeStuffUp.java:207)
    at org.sailinganarchy.bullshit.main(MakeStuffUp.java:207)
    ... 500 more like this

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

They made a mistake offsetting the penalties. That has been well discussed.  The rules say that if both boats are ocs then both have to take a penalty.

The boat 6 secs behind will have an advantage in that case because they can take the penalty first and then the other boat would have to subsequently take the penalty.

"They" did not make a mistake offsetting the penalties.  You (and others) have misunderstood the pertinent rule.  The rule is talking about boat on boat penalties that cannot be offset against an OCS penalty.  I guess, like a lot of posters here, you have not had much to do with match racing.

If a boat starts 6 seconds early it will be judged as a deliberate breach of the rules which would likely lead to DSQ.  Again read the rules correctly, don't make up an answer of what you think a ruling should be.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, porthos said:

I did check it. That's why I posted what I did. And there are reasons why it isn't applicable to this pandemic, which is sui generis.

The presence of a pandemic does not mitigate the effects of starvation nor lack of access to medicine.

A friend of mine is now in stage 4 cancer because she couldn't get tested during lockdown.

I realise that is but a single data point from the world's perspective, but I would be super interested to know how the fact that there is a pandemic going on would mitigate this outcome.

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

The presence of a pandemic does not mitigate the effects of starvation nor lack of access to medicine.

A friend of mine is now in stage 4 cancer because she couldn't get tested during lockdown.

I realise that is but a single data point from the world's perspective, but I would be super interested to know how the fact that there is a pandemic going on would mitigate this outcome.

The increase in mortality due to a loss of employment is most often characterized as a result of stress from the unemployment, which manifests itself both psychologically (suicides, etc.) and physiologically (heart attacks, etc.).

There are two reasons why this pandemic is different. While the pandemic was undeniably stressful, it is a much more short-term stress than what you see in a more typical economic downturn. First, most of these jobs were not lost permanently but furloughed for a brief period of time, which is substantially different (and often times furloughed while retaining health insurance).  In other words, those jobs came back and fairly quickly. At least in the US, the unemployment rate spiked to ridiculous levels in April but dropped back 10% in a matter of months back much closer to where it started.  This was not a sustained period of job loss like in the global recession that took years to resolve.  People were able to get back to work. Work means money and money means food (to use your example). That's good.  

Second, many governments instituted COVID-related relief to specifically mitigate the economic damages of the pandemic. In the US, we've given trillions of dollars to companies to keep paying their workers even if they aren't working and also in the form of direct payments to families.  The handout was so large that many workers were making more on unemployment than they were on the job.  That happened in my own family. On a per-capita basis, other countries have done even more. That also mitigates the stress.

These mortality/unemployment studies have indicated that deaths from unemployment take two years to manifest themselves. That suggests a prolonged period of stress. We've certainly had a shitty year, but we are much better off economically than we were in the 2008 meltdown that took years to shake off. And things are looking better by the day almost.  In other words, and like many things COVID-related, this is unique and I would not expect the rote 1%/40,000 that was born out of macro-economic trends to hold true in an acute pandemic that has its own set of characteristics and responses. 

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

The increase in mortality due to a loss of employment is most often characterized as a result of stress from the unemployment, which manifests itself both psychologically (suicides, etc.) and physiologically (heart attacks, etc.).

There are two reasons why this pandemic is different. While the pandemic was undeniably stressful, it is a much more short-term stress than what you see in a more typical economic downturn. First, most of these jobs were not lost permanently but furloughed for a brief period of time, which is substantially different (and often times furloughed while retaining health insurance).  In other words, those jobs came back and fairly quickly. At least in the US, the unemployment rate spiked to ridiculous levels in April but dropped back 10% in a matter of months back much closer to where it started.  This was not a sustained period of job loss like in the global recession that took years to resolve.  People were able to get back to work. Work means money and money means food (to use your example). That's good.  

Second, many governments instituted COVID-related relief to specifically mitigate the economic damages of the pandemic. In the US, we've given trillions of dollars to companies to keep paying their workers even if they aren't working and also in the form of direct payments to families.  The handout was so large that many workers were making more on unemployment than they were on the job.  That happened in my own family. On a per-capita basis, other countries have done even more. That also mitigates the stress.

These mortality/unemployment studies have indicated that deaths from unemployment take two years to manifest themselves. That suggests a prolonged period of stress. We've certainly had a shitty year, but we are much better off economically than we were in the 2008 meltdown that took years to shake off. And things are looking better by the day almost.  In other words, and like many things COVID-related, this is unique and I would not expect the rote 1%/40,000 that was born out of macro-economic trends to hold true in an acute pandemic that has its own set of characteristics and responses. 

I would suggest to you that the economic impacts of this will be felt far longer than 2008.

Money cannot be printed for free despite what anyone thinks.

At the end of the day, that money is issued to people who now have a claim on your future productivity.

Anywho, we shall (hopefully) agree to disagree and let it go.

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

Are any of the cases directly attributed to Prada event? 

Yes you fool they may be as the source remains unknown in Auckland and is genomically different to previous strains. So many of us kiwis are fucked off at the behaviour on display. 

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

The increase in mortality due to a loss of employment is most often characterized as a result of stress from the unemployment, which manifests itself both psychologically (suicides, etc.) and physiologically (heart attacks, etc.).

There are two reasons why this pandemic is different. While the pandemic was undeniably stressful, it is a much more short-term stress than what you see in a more typical economic downturn. First, most of these jobs were not lost permanently but furloughed for a brief period of time, which is substantially different (and often times furloughed while retaining health insurance).  In other words, those jobs came back and fairly quickly. At least in the US, the unemployment rate spiked to ridiculous levels in April but dropped back 10% in a matter of months back much closer to where it started.  This was not a sustained period of job loss like in the global recession that took years to resolve.  People were able to get back to work. Work means money and money means food (to use your example). That's good.  

 

In the US, despite the fact that the official unemployment level has recovered significantly, we are still down more than 9 million jobs compared to the level of employment immediately prior to the pandemic, when US employment had reached historic highs.

A lot of those are service jobs--the hospitality industry, for example-- that may never come back in their previous form.

As is typical, it is folks near the bottom of the employment ladder that suffer the most for the longest period of time. The US has a pretty dismal record at looking at for those folks at the best of times. Our social safety net has a lot of holes in it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, porthos said:
10 minutes ago, jaysper said:

 

Anywho, we shall (hopefully) agree to disagree and let it go.

No worries. Cheers!

What? No name calling, personal abuse, threatening with Iggie and the usual shit fight? :unsure:

 

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

What? No name calling, personal abuse, threatening with Iggie and the usual shit fight? :unsure:

 

Sorry dude, will try harder next time ;)

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

GD had no choice but to agree. Both teams had to agree to go racing, not just one. Oracle had already said they weren’t going to race, so that was it. Decision made. No racing.

Fair enough, but the lesson is still if you are 4 nil up and have a speed edge, keep racing as soon as possible.  Don't give Ineos a chance to disappear into a shed for a week and come out 2 knots faster, however unlikely that may be.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, accnick said:

In the US, despite the fact that the official unemployment level has recovered significantly, we are still down more than 9 million jobs compared to the level of employment immediately prior to the pandemic, when US employment had reached historic highs.

A lot of those are service jobs--the hospitality industry, for example-- that may never come back in their previous form.

As is typical, it is folks near the bottom of the employment ladder that suffer the most for the longest period of time. The US has a pretty dismal record at looking at for those folks at the best of times. Our social safety net has a lot of holes in it.

Yeah but you have lost those jobs cause you lost the most amazing president you ever had. Not cause of the fake covid pandemic.

geeesh get with the program /sarc/   :)

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Flags said:

Yeah but you have lost those jobs cause you lost the most amazing president you ever had. Not cause of the fake covid pandemic.

geeesh get with the program /sarc/   :)

 

yes, well.....

Too bad we couldn't get rid of him earlier. Too bad he got hired in the first place.

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

Yes you fool they may be as the source remains unknown in Auckland and is genomically different to previous strains. So many of us kiwis are fucked off at the behaviour on display. 

Why am I the fool for asking a valid question?  
Has this been officially announced and I’ve missed it?

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

yes, well.....

Too bad we couldn't get rid of him earlier. Too bad he got hired in the first place.

And Hillary would have been any better? Perhaps a nicer veneer over the top, but she is every bit as psychotic as Trump is IMO.

She spend 3 years blaming a bunch of tweets from Ruskies for her loss rather than facing the fact that the worst presidential candidate in history lost to the 2nd worst.

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

No it doesn't. ACE were just a service provider for the Prada cup. It's no more reasonable for them to have got involved than it would have been for the caterers to suggest a delay.

And yes the caterers could make such a suggestion, but they'd have no right to get upset if the answer was no and their contract said they had to provide service in L2 (and try in L3)

If there was a delay until the 26th, how silly would that look now that L1 is back on the 22nd.

Let it go!

 

 

That’s a fairly narrow view of the situation - the government had input on exemptions for the racing to go ahead and I wonder if they also expressed a preference that racing be delayed a few days until ALL stakeholders could reap the benefits. Auckland City would also have been keen for that. Were ACE just trying to do the right thing by the govt, especially after the MBIE debacle. Why did Symmans get so upset? It doesn’t make any sense for her to have been so angry unless there was something else going on behind the scenes and the fact that there has been no subsequent explanations of those “discussions” suggests that it would not reflect well on one or more parties.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites