Jump to content

Recommended Posts

YB still shows Sunrise ahead. Sunrise elapsed 3d 1 h 53m 19s and Comanche 1d 16h 18 m 25 s. 18 min win to Sunrise in corrected. So both have about 1.5 h faster time in the current results. Was finishing line in a different position? How does YB get the elapsed times?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 319
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

How can you not be impressed by a double win like this?  Was there another boat that was more impressive across the two races?  What's not to like?

Oh, the PR machine at work... So, Comanche set a record and won on handicap?  Umm...  How do you set a record on the full course if the race is scored on a shortened course?  You can't have it bo

Well that only makes it worse. We did not fuck up up but we will not fuck next year.

Posted Images

Seems there was a notice of race issued at 4pm on the 27th. https://res.cloudinary.com/killroy/raw/upload/v1635343998/entrants/utuufttmgfntmognpg4r.pdf

"Competitors are advised that the Organising Committee, earlier today, put into effect the provisions of Sailing Instruction 11.3, Alternative Finish Line. Results for the race are being recalculated accordingly, this will take some time. Results will of course still be provisional as some boats are still racing."

SSI 11.3 reads...

"In the event that severe weather conditions prevent boats from entering Marsamxett Harbour to finish, the Race Committee reserves the right to have all boats finish by crossing an alternative finish line in the South Comino Channel formed by the following coordinates: - Cirkewwa Point 35˚ 59.50’ N 14˚ 19.80’ E Comino Island Point 36˚ 00.30’ N 14˚ 19.50’ E If the alternative finish line is being used, the Race Committee will make every effort to advise boats by VHF Channel 72 or other means, such as SMS to the registered mobile phone."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The timing seems odd. Did some boats finish on one line and others on the alternative line? "Earlier today" yesterday meant surely after some boats had already finished?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Sunrise finished on 26th thus a day before the course was shortened. Surely a competitor needs to know where the finishing line is before he crosses it. And seems very odd to shorten the course after boats have finished. Although RRS doesn't really say you shouldn't.

Of course it is necessary to allow safe course also for the smaller boats finishing later. No easy solution. Will Sunrise get redress?

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

No easy solution. Will Sunrise get redress?

So far, no, but there is still some pending hearings if I'm reading this right:

https://jurydecisions.herokuapp.com/events/Rolex Middle Sea Race 2021/decisions

https://jurydecisions.herokuapp.com/events/Rolex Middle Sea Race 2021/hearings

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Rolex Middle Sea Race 2021 - 28 Oct 2021

Hearings

Time Panel Case Group Initiator Respondent Witness Race Rule
28 09:00   4 IRC3 GBR 4921 Ino XXX     1 62.1(a)
28 10:00   6 IRC5 Sunrise GBR 888X       28
28 11:00   5 IRC5 Sunrise GBR 888X Commanche CAY 007     28

Last Update: 27 Oct 21:27:23

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

 

Take a ride with us onboard Phosphorus II, gusting 30s, sitting on 20 hitting 25 boat speed for over 2 hr. Here’s 3 min of it. Ig @stefanthesailor for more sailing posts ⛵ Rolex Middle Sea Race #RolexMiddleSeaRace

https://www.facebook.com/StefanDebattista/videos/4400264936677607/

 

Smokin' !   Thankyou for that. I enjoyed watching. Am sure it was even better being there.  ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems a strange decision by he OA.  Having been on the ground I didn't really see conditions that would have warranted this.  Wonder if the race records will be negated?  Vast majority had finished by the time the OA swung this into action.  Poor Sunrise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How the hell can the application, after finishing, of a different finish line for subsequent arrivals, alter the result between Comanche and Sunrise so dramatically? They had both finished long prior to the change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, cms said:

How the hell can the application, after finishing, of a different finish line for subsequent arrivals, alter the result between Comanche and Sunrise so dramatically? They had both finished long prior to the change.

It's not fair if the big boys don't win. They spend a lot of money you know.

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

How the hell can the application, after finishing, of a different finish line for subsequent arrivals, alter the result between Comanche and Sunrise so dramatically? They had both finished long prior to the change.

The change in elapsed times were about equal so Comanche was very slow between the original and the changed finishing line. With double the rating it got a huge benefit for taking that last leg out.

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

 

Take a ride with us onboard Phosphorus II, gusting 30s, sitting on 20 hitting 25 boat speed for over 2 hr. Here’s 3 min of it. Ig @stefanthesailor for more sailing posts ⛵ Rolex Middle Sea Race #RolexMiddleSeaRace

https://www.facebook.com/StefanDebattista/videos/4400264936677607/

 

That's a pretty dry boat in those conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the sunrise facebook page:

 

Sunrise Racing Team

May be an image of boat racing, sailboat, ocean and text that says 'Rolex Middle Sea Race is with Joel Jennett in Malta. 2d・ #NEWSFLASH Sunrise have set the time to beat under IRC! They're currently leading overall on corrected time. #RolexMiddleSeaRace Rolex Kurt Arrigo 181 X885 GBR 888X'· 
 
Apparently this isn’t true anymore - the course was shortened yesterday, 24 hours after we finished…

69 boats sailed the full course and finished on the proper line - 19 finished on the ‘shortened line’. 6 of the top 10’s results are being affected.

Absolutely devastated doesn’t cover it. Protest hearings ongoing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

A long way from this decision,  but if there were 19 boats still racing and it became too dangerous to use the inside finish line,  what else were the committee to do?

Tell those 19 that we're sorry you're just not quick enough to finish our race,  even though they had allowed for a bad weather finish in the instructions?

Everyone knew this was possible at the start & would have had the option to make for a best possible finish at their choice of line,  this may or mayn't have changed where they crossed the "short" line.  Best case would probably be to have the "short" line a small gate on the course to reduce this issue.

What is the difference between what has happened here & getting home 1st then having the wind swing behind the rest of the fleet and pick up to blow them home,  or drop out and leave them sitting going nowhere.  I have been on the winning & losing sides of both cases!

I even had one case back in the days of IMS where we had a Sydney Southport Race won when we finished only to have the breeze drop out for the slower boats leading to a change in the calculated wind for the race & we slipped to third.  The bit that really hurt was that the two boats that passed us on the scoreboard had beaten us in but had a better TCF in the lighter air that we never saw!

Yes it hurts at the time,  but there is always next year!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t figure out how the jury ruled that SI 11.3 is not just a description of “shortening the course” which is governed by RRS 32. This seems like a huge error.
 

SI 11.3 does not amend RRS 32. When SI 11.3 is used the final mark of the course is omitted and the course length is reduced (shortened) by 13 miles. 
 

it seems reasonable for the RC to have acted in the interests of safety, but invoking SI 11.3 after a boat had finished clearly broke RRS 32. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's done and Comanche is the winner it seems.! Don't think they care about handicap so perhaps they could donate the trophy to Sunrise.? LOL :D 

No don't see that happening.! The Russian owner of Comanche was on the boat for his first ever ocean race and loved it roaring downwind at 25-30 Knots and he also got to beat Skorpios.! Thrown in the handicap as well and he got the Trifecta.! Value for money too he bought Comanche for a bargain compared to what the other Russian spent on Skorpios. Happy times all round

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, PuckSoppet said:

I can’t figure out how the jury ruled that SI 11.3 is not just a description of “shortening the course” which is governed by RRS 32. This seems like a huge error.
 

SI 11.3 does not amend RRS 32. When SI 11.3 is used the final mark of the course is omitted and the course length is reduced (shortened) by 13 miles. 
 

it seems reasonable for the RC to have acted in the interests of safety, but invoking SI 11.3 after a boat had finished clearly broke RRS 32. 

That's my view entirely. They could have included in the SI's "This amends RRS 32.2" They are within the rules to do this (see RRS 86) However they didn't so in my view they broke their own SI's by doing so. Some boats had finished

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, terrafirma said:

Well it's done and Comanche is the winner it seems.! Don't think they care about handicap so perhaps they could donate the trophy to Sunrise.? LOL :D 

No don't see that happening.! The Russian owner of Comanche was on the boat for his first ever ocean race and loved it roaring downwind at 25-30 Knots and he also got to beat Skorpios.! Thrown in the handicap as well and he got the Trifecta.! Value for money too he bought Comanche for a bargain compared to what the other Russian spent on Skorpios. Happy times all round

 

Maybe he will give the second Rolex to the rightful winners

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

Well it's done and Comanche is the winner it seems.! Don't think they care about handicap so perhaps they could donate the trophy to Sunrise.? LOL :D 

No don't see that happening.! The Russian owner of Comanche was on the boat for his first ever ocean race and loved it roaring downwind at 25-30 Knots and he also got to beat Skorpios.! Thrown in the handicap as well and he got the Trifecta.! Value for money too he bought Comanche for a bargain compared to what the other Russian spent on Skorpios. Happy times all round

 

Next year they will just be another winner on the list. If they had the course record it would likely stand for years

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

A long way from this decision,  but if there were 19 boats still racing and it became too dangerous to use the inside finish line,  what else were the committee to do?

Tell those 19 that we're sorry you're just not quick enough to finish our race,  even though they had allowed for a bad weather finish in the instructions?

 

Surely the best solution in the situation where the majority of the fleet have finished, and the remaining boats are not likely to threaten the top of the leaderboard, is to finish the remaining boats on the shorter course then extend their elapsed time by the time it would take them to sail to the finish at their average VMG.  

Different if only the first handful of boats get to the full finish, but when the majority of the fleet had, then I do think that your solution has to be weighted towards the course the majority of the fleet sailed.  

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

I can’t figure out how the jury ruled that SI 11.3 is not just a description of “shortening the course” which is governed by RRS 32. This seems like a huge error.
SI 11.3 does not amend RRS 32. When SI 11.3 is used the final mark of the course is omitted and the course length is reduced (shortened) by 13 miles. 

SI 11.3 is different from RRS 32 because under RRS 32.2 "the shortened course shall be signalled before the first boat crosses the finishing line". SI 11.3 gives the RC the option to switch to an alternative course (which happens to be shorter) after boats have finished.

It truly sucks for Sunrise but it's just bad luck that the leg that got tossed was one where they were particularly fast relative to Comanche. C have the option to be good sportsmen here but we've seen no sign of that as yet...

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Flaming said:

Different if only the first handful of boats get to the full finish, but when the majority of the fleet had, then I do think that your solution has to be weighted towards the course the majority of the fleet sailed.  

It's unfixable for this edition but in future surely it would be easier to set up an intermediate finish gate just outside the harbour rather than miles back off another island?

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

SI 11.3 is different from RRS 32 because under RRS 32.2 "the shortened course shall be signalled before the first boat crosses the finishing line". SI 11.3 gives the RC the option to switch to an alternative course (which happens to be shorter) after boats have finished.

It truly sucks for Sunrise but it's just bad luck that the leg that got tossed was one where they were particularly fast relative to Comanche. C have the option to be good sportsmen here but we've seen no sign of that as yet...

The mistake the RC made is they didn't 'switch off' RRS32.2. This is one of the rules that RRS 86 allows to be changed. A simple line in the SI's that stated something like "This changes RRS 32.2" and all would have been good. People would still be pissed off but it would be within the rules (which include the SI's). Of course no-one expected them to be dumb enough to change the finish line after some (most) of the boats should be finished. And the crazy thing is the boats they finished early still had to enter the harbour anyway. 

Could you imagine the CYCA finishing the Sydney Hobart off New South Wales because the Bass Straight was too rough? 

Was the weather 'Fastnet severe? RSHYR severe? or just Mediterranean severe? 

Besides if the remaining racers thought the harbour entrance was too rough they could always heave to. I seem to remember Green Dragon anchoring when racing towards Qingdao because it was too rough in the Luzon Strait - that's yacht racing.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

Was the weather 'Fastnet severe? RSHYR severe? or just Mediterranean severe? Besides if the remaining racers thought the harbour entrance was too rough they could always heave to. I seem to remember Green Dragon anchoring when racing towards Qingdao because it was too rough in the Luzon Strait - that's yacht racing.

A mate of mine racing on the Swan 55 says they had a 35-40 knot NE Gregale in the harbour yesterday and the day before. Roughly what they got in this year's Fastnet, less than I hear in the average Sydney-Hobart but particuarly unpleasant to enter Valletta harbour (which is open to the NE). I think the Port Authority formally closes the entrance in the Gregale anyway, so the race organisers don't have much choice?

Agree that the roll of the dice is a key component in yacht racing, but this seems one randomness too far.

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

The mistake the RC made is they didn't 'switch off' RRS32.2. This is one of the rules that RRS 86 allows to be changed. A simple line in the SI's that stated something like "This changes RRS 32.2" and all would have been good. People would still be pissed off but it would be within the rules (which include the SI's). Of course no-one expected them to be dumb enough to change the finish line after some (most) of the boats should be finished. And the crazy thing is the boats they finished early still had to enter the harbour anyway. 

I guess this hinges on whether you view it as a change to RRS32.2. The organisers must argue that it's just a rule about an alternative finish line. In which case it is not a change to the shortened course rule and so no need to reference 32.2. 

The way the SIs are written they could have also shortened the course as per 32.2, with the proper flags and signals and finished them at a mark of the course. But that would require knowing detail about conditions at the harbour entrance 2 days ahead of them occurring.

I can see why they have an SI like the one they had. It affectively allows them to react to weather conditions more precisely and retroactively when you have such a spread in the fleet. The impact is no different than had they made the decision several days earlier, but what feels unfair is that Sunrise got to taste the alternate reality where the full course was raced before having it ripped away from them. 

What I am not sure about, and what would be very unfair, was if later boats altered their strategy to take advantage of the different finish in a way that was not available to the earlier finishers. But it's not clear this is true, or that it is true for Sunrise and not Comanche. 

The other unfortunate thing about the way it has been applied is it's an SI that allows boats affected by the poor conditions to still get a result relative to the early finishers. And yet non of the late finishers are in this case close to competing on IRC against the earlier finishers, so it adds little but does re order the top rankings. 

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

I guess this hinges on whether you view it as a change to RRS32.2. The organisers must argue that it's just a rule about an alternative finish line. In which case it is not a change to the shortened course rule and so no need to reference 32.2. 

 

https://jurydecisions.herokuapp.com/events/Rolex Middle Sea Race 2021/decisions/3

from the decision:

Conclusion

SI 11.3 provides for an alternative finishing line, which is not in conflict with, and is independent of, RRS 32. The race committee’s decision to select the alternative finishing line position was consistent with SI 11.3 and was not an improper action.

Decision

Sunrise’s request for redress is not granted.

Published
27 Oct 19:35:19
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, us7070 said:

 

https://jurydecisions.herokuapp.com/events/Rolex Middle Sea Race 2021/decisions/3

from the decision:

Conclusion

SI 11.3 provides for an alternative finishing line, which is not in conflict with, and is independent of, RRS 32. The race committee’s decision to select the alternative finishing line position was consistent with SI 11.3 and was not an improper action.

Decision

Sunrise’s request for redress is not granted.

Published
27 Oct 19:35:19
 

However the 'alternative' finish line in SI 11.3 shortens the course by some 13 miles. The mechanics of shortening the course are laid out in RRS 32. So how can it be "independent of RRS32" which is quite unequivocal in its wording.

Additionally the SIs DO NOT have "This changes RRS32" included therefore, by definition the SI's DO NOT change RRS32

I would also say the closing of the harbour and the finish line is/was obviously a possibility otherwise there would be no SI 11.3 so why run a race that finishes there? 

So now we have a supposed 'classic' race with two separate finish lines. Could you imagine that in another sport? 

Louis Hamilton has just won the Malta F1 Grand Prix -er sorry, Max Verstappen was ahead on the back straight and Louis, you only got past in the last couple of corners when it started raining really heavily because you are a better driver in the rain and you were on slicks which was dangerous for the slower finishers so we decided the finish line was at the end of the back straight even though we made that decision AFTER you both crossed the actual finish line.

Oh and by the way we can do that because it was in the event instructions even though those instructions didn't follow the proper FIA wording.

It would be front page of the world media but this is just a yacht race.

RRS 32 final sentence has the word "SHALL" in it. That is an imperative - no choice, not by the race committee, the Protest Committee or anyone. If they HAD a choice the wording would be "SHOULD".

The Introduction of the RRS states "Other words and terms are used in the sense ordinarily understood etc eg "You SHALL go to the ball Cinderella" :D

I am not saying the alternative finish line is a poor idea, it is clearly there for safety reasons, but the authoring of the Sailing Instructions was wrong - it was an error of the Race Committee.  

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

However the 'alternative' finish line in SI 11.3 shortens the course by some 13 miles. The mechanics of shortening the course are laid out in RRS 32. So how can it be "independent of RRS32" which is quite unequivocal in its wording.

Additionally the SIs DO NOT have "This changes RRS32" included therefore, by definition the SI's DO NOT change RRS32

I would also say the closing of the harbour and the finish line is/was obviously a possibility otherwise there would be no SI 11.3 so why run a race that finishes there? 

So now we have a supposed 'classic' race with two separate finish lines. Could you imagine that in another sport? 

Louis Hamilton has just won the Malta F1 Grand Prix -er sorry, Max Verstappen was ahead on the back straight and Louis, you only got past in the last couple of corners when it started raining really heavily because you are a better driver in the rain and you were on slicks which was dangerous for the slower finishers so we decided the finish line was at the end of the back straight even though we made that decision AFTER you both crossed the actual finish line.

Oh and by the way we can do that because it was in the event instructions even though those instructions didn't follow the proper FIA wording.

It would be front page of the world media but this is just a yacht race.

RRS 32 final sentence has the word "SHALL" in it. That is an imperative - no choice, not by the race committee, the Protest Committee or anyone. If they HAD a choice the wording would be "SHOULD".

The Introduction of the RRS states "Other words and terms are used in the sense ordinarily understood etc eg "You SHALL go to the ball Cinderella" :D

I am not saying the alternative finish line is a poor idea, it is clearly there for safety reasons, but the authoring of the Sailing Instructions was wrong - it was an error of the Race Committee.  

 

Ask Ken Miles about the 1966 Le Mans......(or just google it, since he is not around anymore).  

 

I guess you weren't told by your parents that life is NOT fair.  Shit like this happens all the time, you have to learn how to deal with it and stop bitchin'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

it was an error of the Race Committee.  

Exactly, just like in the Mini Transat, and then the Jury has to try and make the best of it.

In the Mini's case they did just that, and told off the RC, but in this case they (the Jury) were in denial. And they also could at least have given some compensation, if only not to give the impression of not favouring the Russion billionaire's big boat...

But hey, it's in the med, the playground of the international mafia. Not saying that any of the Russians are, whatever, they should be applauded for spending their money on some of the finest sailing yachts, and personaly enjoying and racing them as well.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Argo.......  ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the latest round of decisions, it sounds like the jury decided that the RC did make an error, not by switching to the alternate finish line (which they still say is independent of a rule 32 shortening) but rather by failing to also explicitly remove the Valetta fairway buoy as a mark of the course. So I think Sunrise was arguing that even if the finish line switch was valid, boats still had to round the Valetta buoy and then return to the alternate finish line. Which apparently nobody did, hence the rule 28 protest.

By that logic, all boats including Sunrise should be scored NSC without a hearing.

Jury decided that since it was ambiguous whether is was necessary to still round Valetta or not and since all boats interpreted the course the same way, the fairest result for all boats is finishing times at the alternate finish line.

Note that SIs did require all boats (even those that crossed before the alternate line was put in effect) were required to take and declare their times for crossing the alternate finish line. So it does seem like the best possible solution to me.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

From the SA FB page

 

 
Quote

 

A follow-up to the post below...
To say that the Rolex Middle Sea race completely screwed the pooch in this edition of the race would be alarmingly accurate, figuratively speaking.
Below is what Sunrise navigator Tom Cheney had to say… It is our understanding that Sunrise received a three-minute standing ovation at the prizegiving last night. There was a cringeworthy speech from a Rolex representative about the integrity of the race and you could have cut the tension in the room with a knife.
 
69 boats finished the full racecourse. 23 were still racing when the course was shortened. Approximately 24 hours after we finished a notice was issued stating that an alternative finish was to be used. The sailing instructions do have a section describing how the race might be shortened at Camino (the strait between Malta and Gozo) 13 miles before the finish and without rounding the final mark of the course. The PRO acknowledged that he’d never intended to use 11.3 after a boat had finished.
SI 11.3 doesn’t amend the RRS on how to shorten the course (see RRS 86). The RRS is pretty clear that you can’t shorten the course after a boat has finished (RRS 32). I completely understand the safety aspect of this but I’m a pretty strong believer in the decision to race, and the weather was never that severe.
My issue is the timing and that I don’t believe the SIs allow them to shorten the course after a boat has finished.
In my first redress hearing, the international jury ruled it was not a shortened course but an “alternative finish line”. When the hearing was over and I pointed out that the fairway mark outside the usual finish is a mark of the course three jurors’ mouths fell open.
I applied to reopen but they denied – no new evidence. In an effort to point out the ridiculous nature of their decision I then suggested that I needed redress because we didn’t sail round the fairway mark and to their “alternative finish” line. I also tried to protest Comanche for the same reason (I did chat to Mitch Booth on the phone to make sure they knew I wasn’t actually accusing them of doing anything wrong. He said he’d be doing something similar in my position).
 
 
The race committee members are screaming at each other and don’t know how to fix it.
How can you finish a 600-mile race as the winner and then the RC change the course/shorten the course after you finish?

 

 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the PR machine at work...

So, Comanche set a record and won on handicap?  Umm...  How do you set a record on the full course if the race is scored on a shortened course?  You can't have it both ways.  Either no record, or no handicap win.  

Sunrise won the Middle Sea Race.  There are only a few people in sailing who don't agree with that.  

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Roleur said:

So, Comanche set a record and won on handicap?  Umm...  How do you set a record on the full course if the race is scored on a shortened course? 

Seems straightforward enough to me. Comanche sailed both courses and was timed on both courses, so she set a record on the harbour finish course.

The harbour finish wasn't available for all boats so it would obviously be unfair to use it for overall results. The race is about all the competitors, not just the ones at the front.

The course wasn't shortened, it was just shorter. Its pretty obvious this was deliberate wording by the OA to avoid the rule issues if they had called it a shortened course. Yes its not a clever move to have a finish that may not be open to all boats, but pretty unlucky to have first place change over that last bit of track. Its obviously not a regular problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the most egregious decision by an OA and Jury in a long time. 32.2 clearly states that the course must be shortened before the first boat finishes. The corollary must be that the course cannot be shortened after one boat has finished. The SIs make no mention of a change to this rule. 
There may have been a race which finished at the shortened line but it was not the Middle Sea Race.

Sunrise and her crew have been royally screwed by this decision. The OA and the jury should hang their heads in shame for such an appalling decision.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, JimC said:

Seems straightforward enough to me. Comanche sailed both courses and was timed on both courses, so she set a record on the harbour finish course.

If you read Sunrise's navigator's comments, no boat correctly sailed the "alternative finish" course, as the last mark before the harbour was still a mark of that course!

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

Seems straightforward enough to me. Comanche sailed both courses and was timed on both courses, so she set a record on the harbour finish course.

The harbour finish wasn't available for all boats so it would obviously be unfair to use it for overall results. The race is about all the competitors, not just the ones at the front.

The course wasn't shortened, it was just shorter. Its pretty obvious this was deliberate wording by the OA to avoid the rule issues if they had called it a shortened course. Yes its not a clever move to have a finish that may not be open to all boats, but pretty unlucky to have first place change over that last bit of track. Its obviously not a regular problem.

Such a load of crap! I hope you never serve on a PC. RRS 32 applies whatever fancy words a race committee puts round the fact that they have shortened the course.

"The course wasn't shortened, it was just shorter" Do you even read what you write? Are you implying the course had some sort of AI and shortened itself?

I invite you to read two simple things, Firstly the RRS Introduction - I doubt if you even know where that is but it is at the front of the book. It states that the meanings of the words in the RRS are the same as in general usage.

Secondly take a look at a dictionary if you possess one and look up "Shorten" depending on the version it states things like "to reduce in length" or "the action of making shorter"

Quite simply the action of using an "alternative finish line" shortened (I'll make it easy for you - made shorter) and reduced the length of the race from 606Nm to 593 Nm.

Add to the fact that as per Rule J2.1 (b) they made no alteration to RRS 32, then that rule still applied in an unaltered manner.

The RC's "deliberate wording" was inadequate. If however it HAD included something along the lines of "This deletes/changes RRS 32" then there would be no issues. However they didn't so RRS32 was still applicable - that's the rules.

Ask Santa Claus for a rule book. 

Regular problem or not, it is a problem created by the RC and as such redress should have been given.

40 minutes ago, Snowden said:

If you read Sunrise's navigator's comments, no boat correctly sailed the "alternative finish" course, as the last mark before the harbour was still a mark of that course!

And he's right. The "alternative finish" instruction only detailed an alternative finish, it did not remove any marks of the course. The Fairway buoy was a published mark of the course so to reach the "alternative finish line" (which was only introduced because of severe weather not a time limit issue or some) such boats should have sailed to the Fairway buoy and then backtracked to the "alternative finish line" therefore satisfying the piece of string concept.  The 69 boats which had already finished sailed through the alternative finish line THEN the Fairway buoy and on to the original finish so their piece of string won't work. The boats that finished after the "alternative finish line" was announced didn't first round the Fairway Buoy yet were recorded as finished.

So either the whole fleet didn't satisfy this piece of string concept as per RRS28.1 and should all be recorded DSQ for not sailing the course or the RC accepts that the whole fleet sailed through the "alternative finish line" on a shorter (remember to be shorter it has to be SHORTENED) course and therefore subject to RRS 32 whatever the crazy International Jury says.

I wonder where they learned their English? 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that think this was a horrible, awful, no-good decision, what alternative do you propose given the facts found as they exist (not the "woulda-shoulda-coulda"  or "if only" alternative facts).

What different conclusions would you reach, and what alternative decision do you think would have been fairest for all boats, including the ~40% of the fleet that was still racing when the alternative finish line was invoked?

Abandon? NSC everyone without a hearing? Give Sunrise the win and screw Comanche & the slow boats?

As for course record, it appears it's based on average speed and not necessarily the full 606 mile course. So does Comanche still set a new record if their finish time at the alternative line is used?

Quote

The John Ripard Trophy will be awarded to the monohull boat that breaks the course record established in 2007 by ”Rambler”. The course record is 47hrs 55mins 03secs, over a distance of 606 miles. The course record will be decided by taking the highest average speed over the particular course sailed and the John Ripard Trophy will be awarded if this average speed is greater than 12.64 knots established in 2007

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, TJSoCal said:

What different conclusions would you reach, and what alternative decision do you think would have been fairest for all boats, including the ~40% of the fleet that was still racing when the alternative finish line was invoked?

Abandon? NSC everyone without a hearing? Give Sunrise the win and screw Comanche & the slow boats?

The RC were in a tough spot. The RRS does not let them shorten the course after a boat has finished. They probably could have done something fairer than affecting the order of 6 of the top 10 after they had finished though. Breaking the RRS to shorten the course was an improper action that affected the result of some boats in a negative way. Therefore they should get redress.

Could the RC not have not just acknowledged that they had to break RRS and suggested that the small boats (that had not been able to finish correctly) get redress based on average VMG or similar?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the International Jury has ruled that invoking an alternative finish line in SIs, independent of rule 32, is allowed (or at least isn’t prohibited) by RRS and does not constitute an improper action. Opinions may differ but that’s the current ruling (and, under 70.5, not subject to appeal). The error was in not explicitly removing the Valletta fairway buoy when the alternative line was invoked resulting in ambiguity, which will probably be fixed next time.

Seems to me the whole purpose of SI 11.3 is to allow the RC to invoke the alternative line if safety conditions warrant and still preserve a fair race for all boats. In other words, the SI anticipates that an alternative line may have to be invoked after some boats have finished at the regular finish line but while others are still racing. That’s different from the intent and effect of a rule 32 shortening and seems appropriate for the circumstances of Middle Sea.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two years ago we were finishing a race (part of a multi-race series), second to last leg, and the RC boat came alongside and said to go home, wind dying, race is abandoned.  We thanked them and motored to the dock.  Meanwhile the 3 faster boats in div ignored the RC, finished, and got scored.  I had to go to the room for redress.  The only possible way to fairly discharge the situation was to throw the race out, but the PC was not willing to ruffle multiple boat's feathers due to the RC's screwup.  Eventually they said, "well, what score would you take to let this drop?".   I said first place.  I don't remember when I caved but I think we got redress of average points for that race.  Moral of the story, PC's will almost always lack the will to do something unpopular even when it's the right thing.  We came out of that tied for first, so it definitely changed the regatta score.

We have a lot of races in the PNW with a 'take your own time mid-race' alternate finish clause.  They are nearly always problematic.  Do you tack and throw away leverage that you've built up for hours, just to get a better mid course time on the off chance that the course is later shortened?  One boat in a division just makes it under the time limit by 1 second, or worse does not make it by one second - someone feels wronged no matter what the RC does.  The whole situation is fraught with the dangers of people who think they're doing the 'right' thing, and as noted in this MSR incident, the rule is almost never written properly in the SIs.

 

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

Seems to me the whole purpose of SI 11.3 is to allow the RC to invoke the alternative line if safety conditions warrant and still preserve a fair race for all boats. In other words, the SI anticipates that an alternative line may have to be invoked after some boats have finished at the regular finish line but while others are still racing. That’s different from the intent and effect of a rule 32 shortening and seems appropriate for the circumstances of Middle Sea.

I agree that this seems like the probable intent. It would be legal if they had just added "This amends RRS 32" at the end of SI 11.3. Without that I just cannot fathom how it is legal. Rather than interpret the wooly language you have to look at the actions of the RC. The "new, shorter course" that has one less mark and is 13 miles... less long?! is changing the course to a shorter course after a boat has finished.

Course was long... then course got shorter = course was shortened and needs to be governed by RRS 32.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the International Jury it all would have been legal if the SI had just deleted the Valletta fairway buoy as a mark when the alternative finish line was invoked. Opinions may vary as to the legality of the "alternative finish line" without changing 32 but the IJ's conclusion is that it's fine and their conclusion prevails.

Suppose the OA does write their SI to change RRS 32 to allow shortening the course after some boats have finished the original course (which is the purpose of SI 11.3 as written) and then the RC invokes the shortened course when some boats have finished the original course while others are still sailing, how does that change the result?

Other than maybe Sunrise and some others whose final results were worsened still feel hard done by but have no cause for redress? I think everyone still gets scored based on finish times at the alternative/shortened finish line.

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

So if the OA writes their SI to change RRS 32 to allow shortening the course after some boats have finished the original course (which is the purpose of SI 11.3 as written) and then the RC invokes the shortened course when some boats have finished the original course while others are still sailing, how does that change the result?

Other than maybe Sunrise and some others whose final results were worsened still feel hard done by but have no cause for redress? I think everyone still gets scored based on finish times at the alternative/shortened finish line.

If the OA writes their SI to change RRS 32 to allow shortening the course after some boats have finished then we get the same final result as now. This is a hypothetical question.

The OA did not do that, so the fact that their action worsened the results of a bunch of boats is an issue. Six boats in the top 10 were affected. Their action should be deemed "improper" and therefore should not be able to detriment the results of boats that are finished. Boats whose score made worse should be entitled to redress.

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

If the OA writes their SI to change RRS 32 to allow shortening the course after some boats have finished then we get the same final result as now. This is a hypothetical question.

The OA did not do that, so the fact that their action worsened the results of a bunch of boats is an issue. Six boats in the top 10 were affected. Their action should be deemed "improper" and therefore should not be able to detriment the results of boats that are finished. Boats whose score made worse should be entitled to redress.

I could argue that they did get redress. The redress given (the fairest outcome for all boats given the nature and effect of the improper action) was finishing places at the alternative line. Now if some boats had sailed to Valletta buoy and returned to Comino to finish in the other direction, that would have been a mess to sort out...

Note that nobody whose results were made better were complaining on principle. If Sunrise had been in front of Comanche at the alternative line but Comanche corrected on them in the last 13 miles, they'd both be arguing out of the other side of their mouths.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, PuckSoppet said:

The rule breaking happened because of an improper action by the RC. Therefore, any redress needs to restore the results to how they were before that action.

That's not the requirement in the rules and as a practical matter is usually impossible. Often a redress that satisfies some boats generates valid cause for redress for others. 

In this case are you suggesting that only those boats that finished on the original line are ranked as finishers and everyone else is DNF? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely don't think they should be scored DNF. I would have scored the 69 finishers of the original course based on their full time and the remaining 23 boats based on their time at the shortened finish plus the extra distance divided by their average VMG (as redress because the RC acted improperly)

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, PuckSoppet said:

I definitely don't think they should be scored DNF. I would have scored the 69 finishers of the original course based on their full time and the remaining 23 boats based on their time at the shortened finish plus the extra distance divided by their average VMG (as redress because the RC acted improperly)

And then what do you do about the boats out of the 23 that say 1) nothing in the RRS or race docs allows that so it's an improper action; and 2) we would have passed/wouldn't have been passed by (pick one) boats X, Y or Z, your method is flawed, we need redress. 

I would say the OA might have helped themselves if they'd discussed the possibility of an alternative finish line in the NOR. Boats that knew that in advance and entered on that basis would probably be considered to have accepted that condition and then had no complaint after the race was over. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW average VMG would be problematic, I think. Average VMG and even average boatspeed for the race includes periods of beating and different windspeeds. If the final pitch is heavy air, reaching or downwind then some boats are going to be faster than others by factors other than their average speeds.

So you can make redress lot more complicated while still less fair to some boats than others.

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

In short: everybody fucked up!

Rule 69 for bringing the sport into disrepute, 1 year ban for all competitors, RC, and Jury.

Harsh but true.

Not everyone Fiji, Comanche & Sunrise both sailed an incredible race as evidenced by the closeness of the correct time whether the original ((correct) result of the manufactured result as a result of the multiple errors. But the RC & PC all need to take a healthy helping of introspection 

It is perhaps a shame that only competitors and their support persons are subject to 69

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the issue ends up being that the SIs had an error in the way they were written.   How many people read them before the race and understood them to mean what was intended?  How many complained that there was an inconsistency?

How many lawyered up after the race to find a way of stopping the officials doing what they had obviously always intended to do because it had an effect on their position?

From the other side of the world and not having seen any more of the documents than are quoted here,  I think the decision was probably the only one available and despite deficiencies in the sailing instructions in line with the committees stated intent.  By the letter of the law it probably should be a no race,  but who does that help?

Yes it's tough on those who lost out,  but that's yacht racing.  Do they really think that someone who was in front with 13 miles of a 606 mile race isn't a deserving winner if the race for safety reasons has to be finished early?

As someone who races Sydney Hobarts I know that the last 11 miles can change a lot,  but we don't have a safety issue with getting to the finish line just a no wind at night issue!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Livia said:

There should be no finishes recorded.

What is more amazing is the view of some dickhead American jurors that it does not matter what the rules say, you do what is fair.

Amazing.

 

Of course it matters what the rules say. Don't be ridiculous.

But not every situation is adequately covered by the rules and sometimes mistakes are made that put rules in conflict with other rules (especially true with unforeseen and untended consequences of NORs and SIs). When that happens the RRS (63.7, 64.2) charges the protest committee with finding  "as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected."

I doubt if most competitors, even those who might disagree with the PC's decisions, would agree that abandonment should be the default.

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

It is perhaps a shame that only competitors and their support persons are subject to 69

I hadn't thought about that before. But I suppose race officials (at least certified ones) are subject to discipline by their respective MNAs and/or World Sailing, which might include decertification.

In any case I don't feel like there was either malice or incompetence involved here, just an honest unforeseen consequence and an honest attempt to preserve the race and make results as fair as possible (perfectly fair having gone by the boards).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

They did, but did they sail the course?

I thought not, they missed a mark, didn't they?

 

Which course? The real one or the one which wasn't shortened (according to the International Jury)

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

They did, but did they sail the course?

I thought not, they missed a mark, didn't they?

 

Which course? The real one or the one which wasn't shortened (according to the International Jury)

 

43 minutes ago, Livia said:

There should be no finishes recorded.

What is more amazing is the view of some dickhead American jurors that it does not matter what the rules say, you do what is fair.

Amazing.

 

Actually the Jury Chairman was British and the IJs came from 4 different MNAs and the 5th one s not listed as an IJ

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

I hadn't thought about that before. But I suppose race officials (at least certified ones) are subject to discipline by their respective MNAs and/or World Sailing, which might include decertification.

In any case I don't feel like there was either malice or incompetence involved here, just an honest unforeseen consequence and an honest attempt to preserve the race and make results as fair as possible (perfectly fair having gone by the boards).

No decision that disregards a rule can be considered 'honest' IMHO and several were disregard

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TJSoCal said:

Of course it matters what the rules say. Don't be ridiculous.

But not every situation is adequately covered by the rules and sometimes mistakes are made that put rules in conflict with other rules (especially true with unforeseen and untended consequences of NORs and SIs). When that happens the RRS (63.7, 64.2) charges the protest committee with finding  "as fair an arrangement as possible for all boats affected."

I doubt if most competitors, even those who might disagree with the PC's decisions, would agree that abandonment should be the default.

Maybe next time the SIs should include an instruction that allows the OA/RC to modify the SIs whenever different language would better suit the desired result, such as specifically negating RRS 32 after the fact or eliminating a mark of the course if necessary.

Maybe this should not be in purple font

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a simple "We fucked up but there is has now gone way too far to fix it at this stage. It won't happen again, and please don't let our error ruin what is one of Europe's truly great races" might have found more fertile soil. 

Unfortunately, this will have tarnished the race badly. It was on my bucket list for my 3600 but I'll be watching the next few years before making any kind of commitment to participate. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites