Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 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

It also says the following:

Start

A yacht starts when:

(a) her platform border having been entirely on the pre-start side of the starting line at or after her starting signal, any part of her platform border cross the starting line from the pre-start side to the course side; or

(b) having crossed the starting line from the pre-start side to the course side within 10 seconds prior to the starting signal and been identified as OCS, she completes a penalty for OCS.

OCS Penalties
Penalty for yachts that are OCS:
(i) after her starting signal and while inside the boundary, the penalized yacht shall act immediately to reduce her VMG / VMC until she is 50 metres behind the other yacht, or
(ii) the penalized yacht shall start as per definition start (a).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours 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.

Please, just stop with all of the out of context data and false conclusions.  As much as I hate to drift off topic, it is just so hard to leave such BS stand without fact checking.

So you claim the death in the US increase 40K with each percent of unemployment.   Ok, here are the unemployment number over the last two decades where we have had very dramatic changes in the rate of employment.  The next chart is a list of the death by year over that same period of time.  It is obvious that your claim is total BS!

Please do some research before you post BS trying to support a false narrative.

1299305488_ScreenShot2021-02-23at11_35_49PM.png.655bb7f06259b00b60d44700320384b9.png

1843004349_ScreenShot2021-02-24at12_09_14AM.thumb.png.263ab73ee76d11b2b7e35896b7bea3d9.png

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

Please, just stop with all of the out of context data and false conclusions.  As much as I hate to drift off topic, it is just so hard to leave such BS stand without fact checking.

So you claim the death in the US increase 40K with each percent of unemployment.   Ok, here are the unemployment number over the last two decades where we have had very dramatic changes in the rate of employment.  The next chart is a list of the death by year over that same period of time.  It is obvious that your claim is total BS!

Please do some research before you post BS trying to support a false narrative.

1299305488_ScreenShot2021-02-23at11_35_49PM.png.655bb7f06259b00b60d44700320384b9.png

1843004349_ScreenShot2021-02-24at12_09_14AM.thumb.png.263ab73ee76d11b2b7e35896b7bea3d9.png

Problem is cupcake that I did. Pull your head from your sphincter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, trt131 said:

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

Can you point me to this rule so I can read it for myself please?

 

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

1) The suggestion from ACE was to push the Prada Cup final out AS WELL AS the AC out one week, due to the Covid-19 Alert Level 2 restrictions meaning the AC village was forced to close, as well as 2 courses (previously agreed to also) weren't able to be used. So in essence, the time period in between would have been exactly the same.

2) When courses B & C were restricted, ETNZ voluntarily elected to not use or train on those courses, as there was an issue with the challengers feeling ETNZ would gain a competitive advantage by doing so, even though there was no rule that prohibited it.

3) An agreement was reached on these restrictions imposed by the Ports of Auckland, however LR went to arbitration and got the 2 courses removed, only for ETNZ to reach a deal with the Port and have them reinstated again. 

4) Individuals in ACE can suggest what ever they want, and they can also say what ever they want. There is a HVA to be considered by ACE, which is exactly the reason they suggested pushing the event out to ensure maximisation of fan engagement. Something they are within their rights to do.

5) Tina Symmans statement was correct in that the CoR put competitive aspirations ahead of fan engagement, something they were within their rights to do. There was no consideration of fan engagement given to their decision, it was purely competitive, something the next CoR may also consider should LR win.

 


"L'è pusè facil meteghel in del cù che in del co"
Old saying in Milan

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

There was no consideration of fan engagement given to their decision, it was purely competitive

Boo hoo.  The America’s Cup is a race, not a spectacle.

At any rate Level 2 permits sporting events, gatherings of 100 and hospitality to remain open.  If the NZ govt considered there to be a serious risk they would have moved to a high level, and then legitimately the racing could be postponed.  

Here in the UK we have been under far tighter restrictions than that for 11 months now.  Yet still six people in my office have died with COVID despite us working from home where possible, needing a negative test result to get on site and having to wear mask and goggles if we get within 2m of someone. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Forourselves said:

"Cook the man some fucking eggs!"

Old saying in NZ.

I like old sayings. But you have to admit the milanes one is more colourful and a subtle metaphor ;)

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

I recommend referring to the rules published here : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nZaSr30dFuP6Ob3mb3f0fNbHcr5s2pvU/view

44.2 Penalties

(a) OCS Penalties
Penalty for yachts that are OCS:
(i) after her starting signal and while inside the boundary, the penalized yacht
shall act immediately to reduce her VMG / VMC until she is 50 metres behind
the other yacht, or
(ii) the penalized yacht shall start as per definition start (a).

There is no exception to this rule and no discretion in the rules for the umpires to allow offsetting penalties. The rule refers to penalties for "yachts"  that are OCS.  All yachts that are OCS must take an OCS penalty whether one yachts or both yachts are OCS.

In particular Rule 44.4 (c) does NOT apply to a situation where both boats are OCS

44.4 (c) If a yacht has a penalty and the other yacht is penalized, each penalty shall be
cancelled and this shall be signalled via the RO Comms. This rule does not apply to
penalties for OCS.

Mozzy sails, EyeSailor and the many others who have posted in this thread that the umpires made a mistake offsetting two OCS penalties are correct. The rule is written unequivocally that both boats MUST take a penalty.  They cannot be offset. The first boat to complete their penalty will gain the advantage.

Hope that helps clarify the discussion on the rules, even if it leads to some potentially confusing tactics. 

Nope you're wrong. I posted about this 6 odd pages ago before Mozzie and eyesailor but was ignored. You are reading the combinations of the rules wrong.

 

The key is around the wording "A" yacht, singular.

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

It's a poorly written rule and the outcome is absurd.

If both A & B are OCS (as occurred), how does boat A get 50m behind Boat B when Boat B is trying to get 50m behind boat A.

They could end up racing each other downwind trying to be the first to clear the penalty, as the first boat to clear has the advantage.

Yep, said the same thing on here just after the incident. It is a poorly worded rule.

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

It really does seem that if both boats are over early making them both restart will open the fewest cans of worms

Until they crash trying to do an unplanned rapid maneuver, probably into each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, trt131 said:

Because the rule says there is a 50 meter penalty.  Even if a boat decided to restart, they haven;t necessarily done their 50 metre penalty.

I am glad someone else is finally reading the rules as written and not inventing shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

Google translate fails me @strider470.  Looking forward to the translation!

 

ahahahaha, that's because it's not plain Italian, it's a saying in the dialect of Milan, used when there is no way to make someone understand a concept even with solid logical argumentation.

"L'è pusè facil meteghel in del cù che in del co"

L'è pusè facil -> it's easier

meteghel -> put something inside / stick something - (to someone)

in del cù - > in the ass

che  -> than

in del co -> in the head

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

ahahahaha, that's because it's not plain Italian, it's a saying in the dialect of Milan, used when there is no way to make someone understand a concept even with solid logical argumentation.

"L'è pusè facil meteghel in del cù che in del co"

L'è pusè facil -> it's easier

meteghel -> put something inside / stick something - (to someone)

in del cù - > in the ass

che  -> than

in del co -> in the head

That's cheating! I already have Google Translate open almost permanently now... and you throw in dialects?  :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@sosoomii since you seem intrigued by the matter, this also is nice:

"Cent co cent crap, cent cù dusent ciapp" 

Cent co -  > 100 heads

cent crap -> 100 (thinking) brains

cent cù -> 100 asses

dusent ciapp -> 200 buttocks

 

Which could be translated like this : it's difficult to get along with everybody, everyone has their own way of thinking and doing

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MaxHugen said:

That's cheating! I already have Google Translate open almost permanently now... and you throw in dialects?  :rolleyes:

Protest me! :D

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jethrow said:

image.png.87c7e3745c52d8a9a048544cf662716e.png   :D

I was asked to install a microphone inside my mouth to prove it, but I didn't accept. So the protest was dismissed.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, not from this world said:

Nope you're wrong. I posted about this 6 odd pages ago before Mozzie and eyesailor but was ignored. You are reading the combinations of the rules wrong.

 

The key is around the wording "A" yacht, singular.

If 2 blokes have apples and someone asked you, "does 'a bloke' have an apple?" what would your answer be?

The same wording used in QA 1, Q1 stating that the umpire can use discretion to nullify penalties if both boats are deemed to be even on the course. Whilst 'a yacht' is a singular statement, it doesn't define the interpretation as only being singular. To me, both boats having an OCS penalty satisfies the prereq of 'a yacht'.

Hopefully, RS is coming up with a few tweaks around a double OCS to remove the grey.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The_Alchemist said:

Go ahead and blame disagreements on some sort of evil hatred for NZ if that helps you justify your ridiculous conclusions.

You have repeatedly shown a lack of logic, so your opinion does nothing for me...  

 

Gee dude ...don’t get so worked up about things 

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

I am glad someone else is finally reading the rules as written and not inventing shit.

You and I have had many discussions on rules in the past and in another live, Inch

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

If 2 blokes have apples and someone asked you, "does 'a bloke' have an apple?" what would your answer be?

The same wording used in QA 1, Q1 stating that the umpire can use discretion to nullify penalties if both boats are deemed to be even on the course. Whilst 'a yacht' is a singular statement, it doesn't define the interpretation as only being singular. To me, both boats having an OCS penalty satisfies the prereq of 'a yacht'.

Hopefully, RS is coming up with a few tweaks around a double OCS to remove the grey.

Are the 2 blokes in the same room in front of me?

I agree with the sentiment of your second para, but not the wording. A yacht does define it as one, otherwise they would have said "a yacht/s or a yacht and/or yachts" or something similar. Keep in mind that the rule specifically allows for penalty to have been for a non OCS infringement, so boat on boat or boundary or something similar. It is absolutely if one boat has a penalty, because if both boats got a penalty, then there would be no penalties to apply.

You seem to be arguing both sides but not sure? Is that you DT?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, trt131 said:

You and I have had many discussions on rules in the past and in another live, Inch

Yes we have. We haven't always agreed, but that is a good thing, drives better knowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

It's on the noticeboard, RRS AC version. 

 

14 hours ago, trt131 said:

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.

Thanks Rennaus.  It seems there is no rule that states that a boat starting 6 seconds will be disqualified for a deliberate breach of the rule. The definition of start does require a boat not to be OCS more than 10 seconds prior to the starting signal.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, trt131 said:

You still don't get it.  44.4(c) is talking about boat on boat penalties and explains that that a boat can offset such a penalty if the other boat receives a penalty.  The rule further explains that a boat on boat penalty cant be offset by an OCS penalty.  If both boats are OCS they are canceled out.  This is the only thing that can happen as the OCS penalty is not to restart (as in normal racing) but to take a 50 metre penalty.  Each taking a 50 metre penalty offsets the penalties.  You are seeing something in the rule that is not there.

I haven't sailed in a decade and I've never match raced, so feel free to tell me I don't get it or call me thick or obtuse. But I can read, so there is that.  Rule 44.4(c) states unequivocally that the provision for canceling mutual penalties "does not apply to penalties for OCS". The plain reading of that provision is that OCS penalties can't be canceled.  At least not from that provision, so the ability to cancel OCS penalties must come from somewhere else. 

But I don't see where.  In fact, the Protocol only uses the word "cancel" in two places: first, in the definition of "finish," where the definition uses the word "cancel" in an erroneous reference to Rule 44.4(e), which doesn't exist (maybe I should let IM know); and second, in Rule 44.4(c), which we have already noted specifically says that OCS penalties can not be canceled.  

Hopefully you can see my confusion.  So if you would, please cite the rule that allows mutual OCS penalties to be canceled. Should be easy to find if it's so that clear that the rest of us are thick or obtuse.  If you are somehow claiming that Rule 44.4(c) implicitly allows OCS penalties to be canceled when it explicitly prohibits them from being canceled, then that is some very fine linguistic gymnastics that I would love to hear you explain. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, IPLore said:

I recommend referring to the rules published here : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nZaSr30dFuP6Ob3mb3f0fNbHcr5s2pvU/view

44.2 Penalties

(a) OCS Penalties
Penalty for yachts that are OCS:
(i) after her starting signal and while inside the boundary, the penalized yacht
shall act immediately to reduce her VMG / VMC until she is 50 metres behind
the other yacht, or
(ii) the penalized yacht shall start as per definition start (a).

There is no exception to this rule and no discretion in the rules for the umpires to allow offsetting penalties. The rule refers to penalties for "yachts"  that are OCS.  All yachts that are OCS must take an OCS penalty whether one yachts or both yachts are OCS.

In particular Rule 44.4 (c) does NOT apply to a situation where both boats are OCS

44.4 (c) If a yacht has a penalty and the other yacht is penalized, each penalty shall be
cancelled and this shall be signalled via the RO Comms. This rule does not apply to
penalties for OCS.

Mozzy sails, EyeSailor and the many others who have posted in this thread that the umpires made a mistake offsetting two OCS penalties are correct. The rule is written unequivocally that both boats MUST take a penalty.  They cannot be offset. The first boat to complete their penalty will gain the advantage.

Hope that helps clarify the discussion on the rules, even if it leads to some potentially confusing tactics. 

Did anyone think to ask Richard Slater for an explanation?  I did.  Back in November when the RRS AC were published. I was puzzled by this situation and asked how to understand OCS when both are OCS.

You need to read a little further:

44.3 (b)    "... or the situation is not covered in Rule 44.2, the umpires shall make their best effort to calculate what the VMG/VMC reduction should be. When they are satisfied with the loss of distance, the umpires shall signal that the penalty is completed via the RP Comms."

So, if both boats are OCS, the umpires want to get both boats back to even with each other. They do this by immediately turning off the penalty for the boat behind, then wait until she catches up with the boat ahead, and then turn off the penalty for that boat.

You don't want to use the offsetting penalties of 44.4(c) because that would give an advantage to the boat that was OCS by a bigger amount or going faster.

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

Did anyone think to ask Richard Slater for an explanation?  I did.  Back in November when the RRS AC were published. I was puzzled by this situation and asked how to understand OCS when both are OCS.

You need to read a little further:

44.3 (b)    "... or the situation is not covered in Rule 44.2, the umpires shall make their best effort to calculate what the VMG/VMC reduction should be. When they are satisfied with the loss of distance, the umpires shall signal that the penalty is completed via the RP Comms."

So, if both boats are OCS, the umpires want to get both boats back to even with each other. They do this by immediately turning off the penalty for the boat behind, then wait until she catches up with the boat ahead, and then turn off the penalty for that boat.

Except OCS penalties are covered under Rule 44.2, so Rule 44.3(b) by its plain terms wouldn't apply. 

Edit: you may be absolutely correct that this is the answer. But that answer doesn't come from the rules as written.  These rules are largely hot garbage on this point.

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

Except OCS penalties are covered under Rule 44.2, so Rule 44.3(b) wouldn't apply.

@porthos - I agree that it's confusing; I would even say poorly written. But that's the explanation Richard gave me. And if you tried to apply 44.2(a) you might have both trying to go the "wrong way" because the first to get 50 m behind the other then gets a big advantage.

Suggested rewording:
44.2(a)  Penalty for a yacht that is OCS: after her starting signal and while inside the course boundary, the penalized yacht shall act immediately to reduce her VMG / VMC until she is 50 metres behind a yacht that has started correctly.    (This is a suggested edit, NOT part of the RRS AC.)

With that wording, if both are OCS you have a situation clearly not covered by 44.2 so that 44.3(b) clearly applies.

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

@porthos - I agree that it's confusing; I would even say poorly written. But that's the explanation Richard gave me. And if you tried to apply 44.2(a) you might have both trying to go the "wrong way" because the first to get 50 m behind the other then gets a big advantage.

 

I think you are registered press Jack. So maybe you could email RS and ask him for clarification on how he is interpreting the OCS rules in advance of the Match.

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

@porthos - I agree that it's confusing; I would even say poorly written. But that's the explanation Richard gave me. And if you tried to apply 44.2(a) you might have both trying to go the "wrong way" because the first to get 50 m behind the other then gets a big advantage.

 

BTW, good to see you again. I hope you've been well.

To be clear, the person interpreting the rule is crafting an outcome that is directly contradicted by the very rule he is interpreting. If that is what you have to do to achieve the result you desire, then why not just amend the rule to make it clear rather than rely on what Richard Slater ate for breakfast*? It would be very simple and they've already amended the rules three times.  Just revise Rule 44.4(c) to state that mutual OCS penalties can be canceled at the discretion of the umpires. How hard is that? Who is going to object to that?
--------------------------------------

*That's a legal saying for rule interpretations that rely on nonsensical actions of the person interpreting the rule. In other words, the only support for this interpretation is what Richard Slater thinks, which isn't a great way of proceeding.

 

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

I think you are registered press Jack. So maybe you could email RS and ask him for clarification on how he is interpreting the OCS rules in advance of the Match.

That's what I did, @winchfodder. Back in November, when the RRSAC was first posted. And he explained to me why they use 44.3(b) when both are OCS:  to get both back to even.

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

Is that you DT?

Ah ha! I THOUGHT someone has had a name change! ;) :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2021 at 4:08 AM, Amati said:

Also: depending how one interprets #4, LR could have been coming up to cut behind Ineos if the tack had been a normal tack, instead of a sluggish tack.  As it was, LR had to bear off, avoiding a boat on port tack.  I also didn’t see Ineos doing anything to keep clear.

At the point INEOS tacked, it was going to cross LR safely. After it was committed to the tack, LR headed up so INEOS had no way of avoiding a collision. That's why it was considered that LR could not luff up to a possible collision course seeking a penalty. Whether that meant LR couldn't luff for other reasons, e.g. to slow down so as to not cross early, is irrelevant. There are ways to slow down other than luffing that would also have avoided a collision and possibly been more effective to prevent an early start (in that particular case).

It's explained by the umpires here.

 

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

At the point INEOS tacked, it was going to cross LR safely. After it was committed to the tack, LR headed up so INEOS had no way of avoiding a collision. That's why it was considered that LR could not luff up to a possible collision course seeking a penalty. Whether that meant LR couldn't luff for other reasons, e.g. to slow down so as to not cross early, is irrelevant. There are ways to slow down other than luffing that would also have avoided a collision and possibly been more effective to prevent an early start (in that particular case).

It's explained by the umpires here.

 

The umpires used 16 to justify their decision.   They didn’t even understand KR’s question.

How do you slow down these boats that much, for example, Luna Rosa?  Drop the windward board?  Say LR was doing ~ 50 ft per second, and was how far away from Ineos when Ineos tacked?  So how much time did Spithill have to react? Much less do a countdown to a board drop?  I think BA has found a rule loophole the size of a garbage truck.

I still think Ineos blew the tack, or intentionally came around more slowly than usual.  If it was the latter, it was brilliant, because it gave them right of way, on Port, no less!

if LR had tacked to port, would she have had rights to force Ineos over early, since Ineos was low, and slow, or would the judges declared that Ineos was still in the midst of her tack and LR was still burdened?
 

Would it have been ok for LR to hit Ineos?  Either to establish starboard rights?  Or on Port tack but faster & higher, if Ineos was unable to point higher because she didn’t have steerage, or just didn’t want to be over the line early.  Would LR still have had to steer clear?  

I’m betting we’ll see the ‘Ineos move’ again. It’s really low hanging fruit-

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

The umpires used 16 to justify they’re decision.   They didn’t even understand KR question.

Because KR's question didn't make sense. You can't justify breaking a rule because that's what you had to do to start correctly. LR crossed the line just fine, it was time that was the issue.

Quote

How do you slow down these boats that much, for example, Luna Rosa?  Drop the windward board?  

Yes it's been done in previous starts and also to make a mark. It could also have eased sails or fish tailed.

Quote

I still think Ineos blew the tack, or came around more slowly than usual.  If it was the latter, it was brilliant, because it gave them right of way, on Port, no less!

Regardless, they tacked clear and were crossing, hence LR had to luff to create a possible collision.

Quote

if LR had tacked to port, would she have had rights to force Ineos over early, since Ineos was low, and slow, or would the judges declared have Ineos was still in the midst of her tack and LR was still burdened?

Yes, but it didn't and likely if it tacked would not have had an overlap to force INEOS up.

Quote

Would it have been ok for LR to hit Ineos?  Either to establish starboard rights?  

No, not ever in these boats.

Quote

Or on Port tack but faster & higher, if Ineos was unable to point higher because she didn’t have steerage, or just didn’t want to be over the line early.  Would LR still have had to steer clear?  

No.  LR probably couldn't have tacked into a leeward overlapped position since INEOS was sufficiently clear ahead to tack and cross. See pix below.

PS0.png.c5e96b66d25d579d18833764be2402bd.png

INEOS starts to tack, LR starts heading up.

PS1.png.cfd9862256ae63ff2f48cd9fb0cc46a0.png

INEOS tack almost complete, LR about 15° higher than when INEOS began to tack.

PS2.png.c2959366ea3016dd785dee54d2ee892d.png

LR about to duck.

1865637845_PS20.png.7428085aa00e3f17141955ee2a6587ac.png

Same as above, with LR change of course after INEOS starts to tack highlighted (in an appropriate colour).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RobG said:

Because KR's question didn't make sense. You can't justify breaking a rule because that's what you had to do to start correctly. LR crossed the line just fine, it was time that was the issue.

Yes it's been done in previous starts and also to make a mark. It could also have eased sails or fish tailed.

Regardless, they tacked clear and were crossing, hence LR had to luff to create a possible collision.

Yes, but it didn't and likely if it tacked would not have had an overlap to force INEOS up. Does it even gets rights immediately if it tacks into that position?

No, not ever in these boats.

No.  LR probably couldn't have tacked into a leeward overlapped position since INEOS was sufficiently clear ahead to tack and cross. See pix below.

PS0.png.c5e96b66d25d579d18833764be2402bd.png

INEOS starts to tack, LR starts heading up.

PS1.png.cfd9862256ae63ff2f48cd9fb0cc46a0.png

INEOS tack almost complete, LR about 15° higher than when INEOS began to tack.

PS2.png.c2959366ea3016dd785dee54d2ee892d.png

LR about to duck.

1865637845_PS20.png.7428085aa00e3f17141955ee2a6587ac.png

Same as above, with LR change of course after INEOS starts to tack highlighted (in an appropriate colour).

It looks to me like Spithill had ~ 4 seconds to make his decision-  if this is considered safe distance ahead to tack, we will see it again.  These boats cannot stop within 4 seconds quickly with safety.  Look what happened when BA barged.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

I think Spithill knew exactly what INEOS was going to do and decided to go for a collision course and protest rather than attempt to tack below to luff INEOS over the line. The former was certain, the latter unlikely so went for the penalty but didn't get it and consequently was over early. It was a risk/reward gamble that didn't pay off.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My take is left was favored. Both wanted the pin, but INEOS was way too early. PPLR almost nailed it, yet even after painfully serving their OCS penalty, were not disadvantaged (ducked on the first cross, with starboard advantage on the second). Most likely knew they too were early, so come up, open some runway to the pin and maybe force a penalty on INEOS. So close to a perfect start.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2021 at 5:14 AM, mauriciogfj said:

https://www.sailingworld.com/story/racing/around-the-sailing-world-episode-32/

"In this episode of Around the Sailing World, we dig into Luna Rossa Prada Pirelli Team’s dominance in the PRADA Cup finals, which turns into a bit of fun show-and-tell with Ed Baird, Jonathan McKee and Gary Jobson."

not wun of whooom, it seemz, can say "Rossa".

I woz surpryzed at Ed partikularly.

Doo thay shut theer eerz hwenever the team sez theer oan naym?

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Amati said:

The umpires used 16 to justify their decision.   They didn’t even understand KR’s question.

How do you slow down these boats that much, for example, Luna Rosa?  Drop the windward board?  Say LR was doing ~ 50 ft per second, and was how far away from Ineos when Ineos tacked?  So how much time did Spithill have to react? Much less do a countdown to a board drop?  I think BA has found a rule loophole the size of a garbage truck.

I still think Ineos blew the tack, or intentionally came around more slowly than usual.  If it was the latter, it was brilliant, because it gave them right of way, on Port, no less!

if LR had tacked to port, would she have had rights to force Ineos over early, since Ineos was low, and slow, or would the judges declared that Ineos was still in the midst of her tack and LR was still burdened?
 

Would it have been ok for LR to hit Ineos?  Either to establish starboard rights?  Or on Port tack but faster & higher, if Ineos was unable to point higher because she didn’t have steerage, or just didn’t want to be over the line early.  Would LR still have had to steer clear?  

I’m betting we’ll see the ‘Ineos move’ again. It’s really low hanging fruit-

The OCS is not relevant. It happened after, and it doesn't apply anyway.

Seems fantastical to assume anyone would know whether that INEOS tack in that situation was slower than normal or not.

LR didn't tack to port. So that is hypothetical and you would have to provide more detail than is possible to provide for a clear judgement.

No, it's not OK to hit another boat in these races. It's not dinghy team racing.

Probably that exact situation won't happen again. Hopefully the boats learn that they can't slow down so they shouldn't be early. That's the low hanging fruit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2021 at 6:14 PM, Forourselves said:

"Cook the man some fucking eggs!"

Old saying in NZ.

  Was that before or after " Jake the Muss " beat the living shit out of his girlfriend ?

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

  Was that before or after " Jake the Muss " beat the living shit out of his girlfriend ?

And it still happens, in between gang members being stopped from shooting each other by a woke police force. 

NZs gang problem is being heavily subsidized by Arderns "idealistic, liberal, left leaning " be kind" benefits for all" legislation.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nroose said:

The OCS is not relevant. It happened after, and it doesn't apply anyway.

Seems fantastical to assume anyone would know whether that INEOS tack in that situation was slower than normal or not.

LR didn't tack to port. So that is hypothetical and you would have to provide more detail than is possible to provide for a clear judgement.

No, it's not OK to hit another boat in these races. It's not dinghy team racing.

Probably that exact situation won't happen again. Hopefully the boats learn that they can't slow down so they shouldn't be early. That's the low hanging fruit.

"The fastest boat always wins ..."

If you are confident in your speed then there is absolutely no need to mix it up in the pre-start (until it gets to races 8 and 9 in Bermuda and you're finally allowed some wiggle room to cut loose and show true form - just to make a statement).

I might be wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ulairi said:

"The fastest boat always wins ..."

If you are confident in your speed then there is absolutely no need to mix it up in the pre-start (until it gets to races 8 and 9 in Bermuda and you're finally allowed some wiggle room to cut loose and show true form - just to make a statement).

I might be wrong.

Sometimes the slower boat is going to be leading back. I just want to see them not early for the start. I just really want to see that. I will be very sad if we don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nathan Outteridge says during the Prada Cup Final ETNZ were on the side of the course during racing and doing laps before the racing after the racing . So they know exactly how fast Luna Rossa is and would have accumulated data during this time. He says Luna Rossa are guessing as to how fast ETNZ really are? Cup Preview.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2021 at 11:32 PM, MaxHugen said:

Goody was providing information. DB had to make the decision within a couple of seconds - riskier and faster, or safer but potentially letting your opponent back into the race. They made the tack OK. Then they got hit with a gust, and probably didn't have sufficient speed back in the bear away, after a slight slowdown after the tack splash.

The colour of safe is not gold.

It turns out that the color of unsafe is not gold either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...