Jump to content

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Dog Watch said:

Just listened to the interview. 

Quick question..

If the 'Alternate Finish' had been actually longer, say 13 miles longer (619nm, just in a safer location for the boats), would the same complaint be made?

Isn't the fact that the course was 13 miles 'shorter' just a coincidence which is being used as the crutch ("it was a shortened course") for this argument?

DW

Certainly the RRS32 argument could not be used.

It would still have to be signalled before a boat had finished (at 606Nm) otherwise said boat would not have sailed the new (longer) course so the first 69 boats would be DSQ as they wouldn't have satisfied RRS 28 "Sailing the (New) Course"

Just as open to redress as the current situation but at least the International Jury couldn't pretend that RRS32 didn't apply.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 317
  • 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

Yellowbrick tracker far better than the Rolex one. https://yb.tl/rmsr2021

Posted Images

7 hours ago, trt131 said:

Tubby, I am not sure if your comment was aimed at me, but what I was saying the RC could have set up the alternate finishing line on YB.

No, more at the previous comment suggesting that a new line not contemplated prior to the start or finish(es) could be a better option.

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

So,  finishing the race at a point allowed for and described in the SIs is bad,  because the SIs were badly written,  but finishing at a different point not contemplated by either the organisers or competitors is good???

Tubby, though I enjoy learning the RRS and the implications of them I cannot consider myself any kind of expert. 

My point was that it appears the gap between the intended race course and results was caused by the second last leg (perhaps it is the last leg as I am not sure if the buoy outside the harbor was a mark for the course or not) and the conditions experienced there. Some of the boats transited this leg in good breeze at a nice angle and others in less perfect conditions causing the relative elapsed times quite different from the turn to the south and the crossing of the start-finish line. It is my belief that if the course was ended immediately outside the harbor instead of the originally intended finish line the results would have been fair and they would not have had to send boats into a potentially  unsafe entrance to the harbor. 

In answer to your question above, I believe this would be a good result for the race and the competitors. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I laughed when the Bar Karate guys said the results would have added $ 200,000.00 to the value of the boat. I thought this earlier item might have validated it but no prices. 

Anyone know what they are asking?  Anyone have any opinion on the potential increase in value due to the wonderful race results? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

in watching the race replay (start) I see that PAPREC TP 52 was in the last start, while the rest of the TP52's were in the start prior.

Did the IRC cutoff between classes happen to exist in the tiny space between irc ratings ?   Seems odd to split the 52's when they rate so closely

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2021 at 4:27 PM, 1sailor said:

in watching the race replay (start) I see that PAPREC TP 52 was in the last start, while the rest of the TP52's were in the start prior.

Did the IRC cutoff between classes happen to exist in the tiny space between irc ratings ?   Seems odd to split the 52's when they rate so closely

I read Paprec's report at the time of the race. They pointed out that this was their first trial foray into offshore sailing and that at this point, contrary to others, they did not fully IRCized the boat. With the TP 52's rating being very close to, the cut-off, that was it.  Details on their FB

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2021 at 12:04 PM, DFL1010 said:

Has been for a bit of time.

Wayback has a hit from Sept last year:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200923160946/https://ancasta.com/boats-for-sale/used/sail/jpk/11-80/33164/

 

 

Also has been listed for charter forever. If your boat is coded anyway it makes sense to do this and defer VAT.

https://lvyachting.com/yachts/sunrise-jpk-1180/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hate to bring this up again but..

January 22 edition of Seahorse (RORC magazine) has two columnists expressing 'concern' about what happened.

Effectively this is telling the OA/Jury/RMYC etc that they made a balls of it. It's still not too late for them to do the right thing but I doubt we will see any change unless the CAS is involved

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2021 at 7:41 PM, Lynch said:

Hate to bring this up again but..

January 22 edition of Seahorse (RORC magazine) has two columnists expressing 'concern' about what happened.

Effectively this is telling the OA/Jury/RMYC etc that they made a balls of it. It's still not too late for them to do the right thing but I doubt we will see any change unless the CAS is involved

The two columnists being James Neville, commodore of RORC, and Rob Weiland, TP52 class manager and president of the international maxi association. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 11/1/2021 at 8:35 AM, JimC said:

The course wasn't shortened, it was just shorter.

I am not taller than my brother.  It is just that he is shorter than me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2021 at 3:59 AM, Chimp too said:

 It is not the Race Committee that makes that final call, but the PC/IJ. You may not like their decision, but they have a lot more experience and knowledge than you,

 

Do you have any evidence to support that statement?

Looking at two of the resumes of the judges that made up the international jury of the middle sea race, they have about as much experience in high level offshore racing as Michael Masi  has in motor racing!

As to rules knowledge, you might want to look at how many times at least one of those judges has been overturned on appeal. It must have been with a huge sigh of relief that he joined an International Jury where his decisions can no longer be reviewed by peers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Entry for the 2022 race is open.  Does this race sell out?  I'm thinking no, but don't want to be wrong.  Plenty of races do nowadays.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2022 at 11:42 PM, EYESAILOR said:

Do you have any evidence to support that statement?

Looking at two of the resumes of the judges that made up the international jury of the middle sea race, they have about as much experience in high level offshore racing as Michael Masi  has in motor racing!

As to rules knowledge, you might want to look at how many times at least one of those judges has been overturned on appeal. It must have been with a huge sigh of relief that he joined an International Jury where his decisions can no longer be reviewed by peers.

You make a very valid point EYESAILOR however I believe it is perhaps even more basic than that. They need a greater understanding of the rules and maybe even rules they don't use very often.

I cannot see past the fact that Rule 32 allows NO exception to shortening the course after a boat(s) has finished, including the inclusion of an alternative finish line . It SHALL be signalled before the FIRST boat crosses the finish line. Almost 70 had passed the finish line.

Also because the SI's made no mention that Rule 32 had been deleted or changed (as required by RRS J1.2) it was very much ON in it's entirety. 

In addition the RYA Case 1996/4 in its summary of FACTS states "Class 1 could not be shortened at that mark because 'Stampede' had already passed that mark". As the Chairman of the IJ was a former RYA Racing Rules Manager I would have thought he would have been aware of that case.

There is NO reason in my view that any judge or jury has the right or authority to disregard any Racing Rule of Sailing in reaching their decision.

I have discussed this situation with umpires/judges with multiple ACs and Rolexes in their CVs and not one of them holds the opinion that the correct decision was made.

However no blame should be placed at Rolex's door as they were the naming rights sponsor, not the organisers nor the jury.

As far as Comanche is concerned? They were gifted (in my opinion) the triple by the OA and Jury in a similar manner to a certain Dutch racing driver became world champion. It is not their place to refuse - they did not make the error and did indeed sail a fantastic race themselves otherwise would not have been in a position to inherit the victory from the errors.

If the ultimate arbiters of a sport cannot be trusted to follow the rules of said sport to the letter, or at least to the word, then they bring that sport into disrepute

See ya on the water

SS

 

  • Like 1
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...