Jump to content

2021 Sydney to Hobart


Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, lahana said:

I stand corrected! OFFSHORE racing, not ocean racing it is. If I don't rest my arms on the side of a bathtub, does that mean I'm offshore as well?

Come do a few races here. I don’t think anyone is knocking how hard a Hobart race can be. Only an ignorant ass would knock the conditions we encounter on the Great Lakes though. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY This is SPORTSMANSHIP SPORTSMANSHIP SPORTSMANSHIP MAYDAY SPORTSMANSHIP Our position is untenable We are beaten, battered, holed and sinking We are abandon

A good point. After every on-deck action, at every watch change, and in any case at every hour, I as watch captain (and this was the boat's standard practice) would call "Count off". My watch members

Posted Images

6 hours ago, LB 15 said:

I think this quote taken from the 'interests' section of your profile explains it all.

Now please be quiet. The adults are talking.

OK, standing by channel 16...sorry for talking in 'your space'

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

So biggest wave ever recoded on Great Lakes is about 8m (26’8’’) with significant wave height at about 4m max.

Hmmmmmm

If you've never sailed it, you won't get it by data.

Great Lake waves may not have the height of the ocean... but try 12-16ft wave hitting you ever 10-sec.  Wave period on ocean waves is 25-30sec.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/23/sports/yacht-racing-inland-races-prove-worthy-of-oceangoing-sailors-best-efforts.html

The Great Lakes are not the Southern Ocean... but many ocean ships are on the bottoms of the best supply of fresh water in the world... so they aren't some little ponds either...

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gt-MTb said:

If you've never sailed it, you won't get it by data.

Great Lake waves may not have the height of the ocean... but try 12-16ft wave hitting you ever 10-sec.  Wave period on ocean waves is 25-30sec.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/23/sports/yacht-racing-inland-races-prove-worthy-of-oceangoing-sailors-best-efforts.html

Agree, short'n choppy is a bain, but offshore as claimed it is not. What's the swell like where you are, same direction as the wind? Hope there isn't a residual chop from previous wind direction thrown in, continental shelf, opposing current etc. etc.

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

Only an ignorant ass would knock the conditions we encounter on the Great Lakes though. 

Ya think ?? 

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

You “sail” in a shitty river in Ohio

Now that is an ignorant statement if ever one was written. 

Ya sniveling anonymous coward. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A total lack accountability for an avoidable cockup, and the whataboutism in this thread are comical. Lots of fingerpointing at people/procedures/equipment, but none toward the mirror. Tough lesson, but time for some buttercups to harden up and be better.

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

Only an ignorant ass would knock the conditions

Oz seems to produce more than their share of that elk 

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

Come on Livia, this is stupid stuff that helps no one.

When a thread has Mr. Random as the voice of reason . .  

ya know it is in trouble. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Recidivist said:

Are you telling me you have never questioned the decision of a skipper ?? "  Wow, non sequitur of the year, so far.  Congratulations. No, by the way.  Work it out.

If you would like to take your chances at calling me a coward in person, PM me and I'll give you the address.

Well, to be fair I have never been paid to race sailboats, so I don't totally get the stress that must involve. 

On the other hand I have indeed challenged a skipper's decisions where safety was involved . . such as by saying, "Lets get the sails down now." as a wall cloud was bearing down on us and it looked as if he was intent on racing to the exclusion of other considerations. 

And I suppose it does make a sort of sense that when one's livelihood is on the line, being outspoken may not be the best strategy.   

But are you really saying that paid crew NEVER challenge a skipper ?? That is almost hard to believe. 

All I wrote above is that "Sometimes one has to do that." i.e., spout off when the situation calls for it. 

At that point several of ya lost it  .  .  tough 

On the other hand I should not have so readily and almost casually used the word "coward". 

I apologize for that 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gt-MTb said:

If you've never sailed it, you won't get it by data.

Great Lake waves may not have the height of the ocean... but try 12-16ft wave hitting you ever 10-sec.  Wave period on ocean waves is 25-30sec.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/23/sports/yacht-racing-inland-races-prove-worthy-of-oceangoing-sailors-best-efforts.html

The Great Lakes are not the Southern Ocean... but many ocean ships are on the bottoms of the best supply of fresh water in the world... so they aren't some little ponds either...

 

I didn't know Lake Baikal was in the great lakes?

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

....

I apologize for that 

Apology accepted.  With 200,000 blue water miles under my keel, a retired Political "science" professor casting aspersions about my character isn't going to send my blood pressure soaring.

And to put your mind at ease, I am not and never have been a professional sailor.  But I know a few and I know they will always speak up within their remit of making the boat go faster (or matters relating to safety), but not outside those boundaries and never off the boat.

Peace.

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

Well, to be fair I have never been paid to race sailboats, so I don't totally get the stress that must involve. 

On the other hand I have indeed challenged a skipper's decisions where safety was involved . . such as by saying, "Lets get the sails down now." as a wall cloud was bearing down on us and it looked as if he was intent on racing to the exclusion of other considerations. 

And I suppose it does make a sort of sense that when one's livelihood is on the line, being outspoken may not be the best strategy.   

But are you really saying that paid crew NEVER challenge a skipper ?? That is almost hard to believe. 

All I wrote above is that "Sometimes one has to do that." i.e., spout off when the situation calls for it. 

At that point several of ya lost it  .  .  tough 

On the other hand I should not have so readily and almost casually used the word "coward". 

I apologize for that 

I note that you acknowledge that you have never been paid to race a sailboat.Have you ever been paid not to race a sailboat.If not I am sure many from our neck of the woods would contribute to ensure that doesn’t happen.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gt-MTb said:

If you've never sailed it, you won't get it by data.

Great Lake waves may not have the height of the ocean... but try 12-16ft wave hitting you ever 10-sec.  Wave period on ocean waves is 25-30sec.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/23/sports/yacht-racing-inland-races-prove-worthy-of-oceangoing-sailors-best-efforts.html

The Great Lakes are not the Southern Ocean... but many ocean ships are on the bottoms of the best supply of fresh water in the world... so they aren't some little ponds either...

Perhaps most famously the Edmund Fitzgerald

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

 

 

That's how I know about her. A great song Fiji by an under-rated artist. When I first heard it I thought it was just made up by Gordon Lightfoot but when I did the research I discovered it was a real disaster - they never found out what really happened to her. Big lakes waves may be smaller but they are shorter and can (obviously) be quite destructive.

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

 

I didn't know Lake Baikal was in the great lakes?

Baikal is a 'great' lake, as is Tanganyika too... both have volume/depth/length. But Superior, Huron and Michigan are each larger in surface area... just Superior is 260% larger... combined the Great Lakes are 800% bigger... so pick you criteria...

I know how great the Great Lakes are and I don't even have to attack other regions of the world to do it... if you don't, it's your loss on both accounts.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Wemedge said:

“I hereby publicly retract anything and everything I have ever said about inland sailing.” -Ted Turner on the 1970 Chicago Mackinac 

Larry fucked off after S-H, rich guys apparently don't like bumpy rides.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Well, to be fair I have never been paid to race sailboats, so I don't totally get the stress that must involve. 

On the other hand I have indeed challenged a skipper's decisions where safety was involved . . such as by saying, "Lets get the sails down now." as a wall cloud was bearing down on us and it looked as if he was intent on racing to the exclusion of other considerations. 

And I suppose it does make a sort of sense that when one's livelihood is on the line, being outspoken may not be the best strategy.   

But are you really saying that paid crew NEVER challenge a skipper ?? That is almost hard to believe. 

All I wrote above is that "Sometimes one has to do that." i.e., spout off when the situation calls for it. 

At that point several of ya lost it  .  .  tough 

On the other hand I should not have so readily and almost casually used the word "coward". 

I apologize for that 

A boat is not a democracy!

Make suggestions, sure.  But once the skipper has made his decision you work to implement it to the crews best ability.  To have a crew working in two different directions is a recipient for disaster even if either direction would have been safe!

And there is always the possibility that you might have been WRONG!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, lahana said:

Different tech, Sat phones have separate antennae.

yes, sorry I knew that before I asked so a faulty vhf antenna is no excuse for no hf or sat comm
Sounds like they had all 3 turned off or navigator off watch sleeping?

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

And there is always the possibility that you might have been WRONG!

Very true, one does not do that lightly. 

But what is our responsibility if the skipper is heading for the rocks ? 

I have not been in that situation, but grabbing the helm would be the thing to do. 

Right ? 

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

Very true, one does not do that lightly. 

But what is our responsibility if the skipper is heading for the rocks ? 

I have not been in that situation, but grabbing the helm would be the thing to do. 

Right ? 

Gutsy call just to grab the helm without first checking with the skipper that he’s seen the rocks. I’ve sailed with very experienced skippers who know how to get the most out of the tide and current and that sometimes means tacking alongside the shoreline. On top of that unless you knew you had better nautical knowledge than the skipper it would probably be the last thing you did.

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

Do enlighten us because everything I’ve ever read states the exact cause of her loss has never been determined, although it was probably cargo shift in the 11m seas that started the process.

Well, it took some time to find and examine the wreck, so for a good while there was much speculation, some of it bizarre. 

She did break in two - though that may have happened when she hit bottom after sinking. 

This is a reputable analysis . .  

https://www.mlive.com/news/2015/11/what_sank_the_edmund_fitzgeral.html

Lightfoot is a character - I saw him in person several times performing the EF song. He was/is intent on playing it exactly as it was recorded originally. It is haunting. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that when I saw him in 2016, he sang it an octave higher. He has age a hundred years. Red was finally playing lead guitar on tour…

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

Except that when I saw him in 2016, he sang it an octave higher. He has age a hundred years. Red was finally playing lead guitar on tour…

Red the barefoot boy?

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

From Sydney Hobart to 'The wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. Now that's threaddrift. Unless LB can come up with an adaptation  to fit the subject matter, "The wreck of the  Tattersalls trophy" or......take your pick

Don’t encourage him, he is weather bound by ex cyclone Seth and by tonight he will have posted 20 verses of lyrics.

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

yes, sorry I knew that before I asked so a faulty vhf antenna is no excuse for no hf or sat comm
Sounds like they had all 3 turned off or navigator off watch sleeping?

Good synopsis. Are you an IJ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

Lots of theories, what's yours?

AFAIK nothing definitive

It was definitive! The force of gravity sank the ship. Or even more definitively the force of gravity exceeding the buoyancy force on the hull........ of course there are several non definitive theories as to why force A was able to exceed force B

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2022 at 5:31 AM, Monkey said:

Just a thought, but if Celestial’s masthead antenna did come loose, shouldn’t the navigator have noticed all the boats disappear off AIS?  

YES


A couple of things to consider

Maybe the VHF cable was damaged / suspect.... But after the flare was noticed their VHF was loud and clear... 
Mysteriously, when the conditions got lighter and tacticle, Celestials AIS was seen to be intermittent by other close competitors... Was this the faulty cable ..?   Or was it WO's old splitter..... ???

Why didn't they answer the sat phone..?

We know IB's systems and VHF cable were not damaged prior to racing because they had the rig out to inspect it just prior to the race as they do with all major regattas.... They are heading for Port Lincoln now and will haul and pull the rig again....maybe change rigs...?   No one preps better than MA...This is one of the main reasons they keep winning...  They make fewer mistakes..........Oh and they are shit hot sailors.
BTW.. I'm sure i noticed Celestials rig out at the CY recently... Someone will confirm..?


So does anyone actually know why Jack Sparrow is not here...all jokes aside...?
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, lahana said:

Agree, short'n choppy is a bain, but offshore as claimed it is not. What's the swell like where you are, same direction as the wind? Hope there isn't a residual chop from previous wind direction thrown in, continental shelf, opposing current etc. etc.

If they go too far offshore, they get to the other side. Now everybody dig out there old Gordon Lightfoot Albums.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PIL66 - XL2 said:

YES

Maybe the VHF cable was damaged / suspect.... But after the flare was noticed their VHF was loud and clear... 

Mysteriously, when the conditions got lighter and tacticle, Celestials AIS was seen to be intermittent by other close competitors... Was this the faulty cable ..?   

I rewired my mast a couple of years ago, and when I pulled the coax out of the masthead I found this:

coax.png.4d350839ed66caec3747b2bf620f10c1.png

 

Literally just a couple of strands intact.  

Interestingly (?) I'd never noticed any problems getting out on VHF, and never noticed AIS targets dropping out on my MFD... but people around me had occasionally mentioned that they saw me dropping off *their* AIS display from time to time. Don't know why.  The prior owner had just sailed the boat to Kauai and back the summer prior and reported no issues.  So, maybe those few strands were enough.... most of the time.

Having said that, this was coax that was probably installed 30 years prior when the boat was commissioned.  No excuse for me, but I can't imagine a well-run top-flight offshore team letting their gear get in this condition, let alone not knowing it had.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laser9953 said:

It was definitive! The force of gravity sank the ship. Or even more definitively the force of gravity exceeding the buoyancy force on the hull........ of course there are several non definitive theories as to why force A was able to exceed force B

Here we go ladies and gents, we have another dinghy sailor on deck to help us all figure out how lakes are considered offshore and some old ship that was probably manned by said sailors ended up as an artificial wreck. It sank because it took on water,... who here has never forgotten to put the bung in the dinghy?!?

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PIL66 - XL2 said:

YES


A couple of things to consider

Maybe the VHF cable was damaged / suspect.... But after the flare was noticed their VHF was loud and clear... 
Mysteriously, when the conditions got lighter and tacticle, Celestials AIS was seen to be intermittent by other close competitors... Was this the faulty cable ..?   Or was it WO's old splitter..... ???

Why didn't they answer the sat phone..?

We know IB's systems and VHF cable were not damaged prior to racing because they had the rig out to inspect it just prior to the race as they do with all major regattas.... They are heading for Port Lincoln now and will haul and pull the rig again....maybe change rigs...?   No one preps better than MA...This is one of the main reasons they keep winning...  They make fewer mistakes..........Oh and they are shit hot sailors.
BTW.. I'm sure i noticed Celestials rig out at the CY recently... Someone will confirm..?


So does anyone actually know why Jack Sparrow is not here...all jokes aside...?
 

He posted an unsavoury meme.

Someone complained to the ed.

Someone then complained to a sponsor who complained to the ed.

Jack posted the meme again.

Jack banned.

Lb not sued. Yet.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PIL66 - XL2 said:

YES


A couple of things to consider

Maybe the VHF cable was damaged / suspect.... But after the flare was noticed their VHF was loud and clear... 
Mysteriously, when the conditions got lighter and tacticle, Celestials AIS was seen to be intermittent by other close competitors... Was this the faulty cable ..?   Or was it WO's old splitter..... ???

Why didn't they answer the sat phone..?

We know IB's systems and VHF cable were not damaged prior to racing because they had the rig out to inspect it just prior to the race as they do with all major regattas.... They are heading for Port Lincoln now and will haul and pull the rig again....maybe change rigs...?   No one preps better than MA...This is one of the main reasons they keep winning...  They make fewer mistakes..........Oh and they are shit hot sailors.
BTW.. I'm sure i noticed Celestials rig out at the CY recently... Someone will confirm..?


So does anyone actually know why Jack Sparrow is not here...all jokes aside...?
 

1 After noticing the flare they responded on a hand held.

2 Yes AIS and VHF cable loose, faulty.

3 The satphone call was not unanswered it came back "sorry your call could not be connected" must be with Telstra.

Don't know the details but an epic battle between Jack and LB over covid issues (I think) resulted in No Jack and a greatly muted LB.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PIL66 - XL2 said:

YES


A couple of things to consider

Maybe the VHF cable was damaged / suspect.... But after the flare was noticed their VHF was loud and clear... 
Mysteriously, when the conditions got lighter and tacticle, Celestials AIS was seen to be intermittent by other close competitors... Was this the faulty cable ..?   Or was it WO's old splitter..... ???

So does anyone actually know why Jack Sparrow is not here...all jokes aside...?
 

If you read the reports they actually switched on a hand held VHF and communicated with Ichi Ban using that set from the cockpit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2022 at 5:20 AM, Ease the sheet. said:

If you want to use words like *shall" instead of "will", you shouldn't be surprised when someone calls you a dickhead.

You must absolutely despise the Collision Regulations, which repeatedly use “shall”. For example:

Rule 5. Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout ...

Rule 6. Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed ...

Rule 7(a). Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if a risk of collision exists....

Etc.

I had always been under the impression that the above were legal requirements, but have now learned that in the USA they are mere suggestions. Every mariner is free to obey, or not, as he or she pleases.

 

0ef392dfe90647c04159b5ce86570a3c.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had been MA at the presentation, I would have walked over to Celestial and left it in the boats cockpit or given it to Sam and the his crew look after for about 12 months...

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

Don’t encourage him, he is weather bound by ex cyclone Seth and by tonight he will have posted 20 verses of lyrics.

The legend lives on from the Laser sailers on down
Of the big lake that they call an ocean
The lake sailors it is said, would rather give head

 

Than sail on salt water in motion 
At the first sign of rain, they take down the main,
And then they frighten their crew and give their boners a chew,
Bass strait would make them come early.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Svanen said:

You must absolutely despise the Collision Regulations, which repeatedly use “shall”. For example:

Rule 5. Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout ...

Rule 6. Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed ...

Rule 7(a). Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if a risk of collision exists....

Etc.

I had always been under the impression that the above were legal requirements, but have now learned that in the USA they are mere suggestions. Every mariner is free to obey, or not, as he or she pleases.

 

0ef392dfe90647c04159b5ce86570a3c.jpg

I understand it to be "I shall" and "you will". It depends on the pronoun.

But English is only my first language.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

But English is only my first language.

Plain English.

In legislative drafting, there's a stylistic choice between traditional drafting, plain language, and drafting in general principles ("European style"). There was a big shift towards plain English in Australia in the 90s, but you'll still find traditional drafting in a lot of places. Changing "shall" to "must" is pretty straightforward, but there are cases where switching to plain language can introduce ambiguity so not everyone has jumped on board.

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

You must absolutely despise the Collision Regulations, which repeatedly use “shall”. For example:

Rule 5. Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper lookout ...

Rule 6. Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed ...

Rule 7(a). Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if a risk of collision exists....

Etc.

I had always been under the impression that the above were legal requirements, but have now learned that in the USA they are mere suggestions. Every mariner is free to obey, or not, as he or she pleases.

 

0ef392dfe90647c04159b5ce86570a3c.jpg

Also in the U.K. 

https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/using-will-shall-and-must-in-commercial-contracts/

If my old brain remembers correctly, the word "must" used to appear the the sailing blue book, now the C.Y.C.s' Hobart race Sailing Instructions and World Sailngs' R.R.S. could prove to be nothing more than non  binding agreements if someone was willing to pull the tigers tail**....

**NOT LEGAL ADVICE

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, LB 15 said:

The legend lives on from the Laser sailers on down
Of the big lake that they call an ocean
The lake sailors it is said, would rather give head

Than sail on salt water in motion 

At the first sign of rain, they take down the main,

And then they frighten their crew and give their boners a chew,

Bass strait would make them come early.

 

Bravo LB, well done.

Sail Paradise blown out again today?

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

Plain English.

Changing "shall" to "must" is pretty straightforward, but there are cases where switching to plain language can introduce ambiguity so not everyone has jumped on board.

Sorry atnan, but wrong on both points.  When tidying up or amending older statutes, often simply deleting "shall" and inserting "must" will change the meaning of the provision.  This is a good indicator that "shall" can be ambiguous.

"Plain English" will never introduce ambiguity - that only comes from poor drafting, or possibly when the chance of ambiguity has not been addressed in the drafting instructions and the drafter doesn't pick it for himself/herself.

I don't know why I saw Random's post, but he certainly raises a valid point.  The more arcane the language used, the more the person using the language becomes a gatekeeper of knowledge, and the more they can get away with charging.

The 3 most important elements are certainty, clarity and consistency - in that order.

A provision must be certain - it can ONLY mean ONE thing.  With complex subject matter, to achieve this it may be necessary to sacrifice some clarity - the drafting is complex because the subject matter is complex.

Ideally, however, the provision should be clear - the man in the street can understand what it is laying down.

And consistency, using the same word to mean the same thing, assists in clarity, but sometimes the "thing" is a little different to elsewhere and so a different word must be used.

Wordsmithing isn't easy ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Yeah? How is that going for you Pap smear? 

It's all relative LB, at least you seem to have lost your preoccupation with Gimps.

 

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

Wordsmithing isn't easy ...

True that. To be clear, I'm not advocating use of traditional drafting over plain language...personally I think plain language is better and would make documents like the RRS and typical SIs/NOR more accessible which should be a goal for the sport.

I'll concede that ""Plain English" will never introduce ambiguity" is technically true, however it seems a bit pedantic when you consider what you said about not being able to simply swap out "shall" for "must". This is why you get new versions of RRS or NORs/SIs drafted in traditional language - it's not that plain language wouldn't be better, it's that it takes time/effort and there's a risk if you accidentally introduce sources of doubt (see statutory interpretation). Or the PRO simply copy-pasted from templates provided by World Sailing and didn't think about it.

Perhaps I should keep my mouth shut - it would be fun to see someone get up in front of a protest committee and argue that they thought "shall" meant "may" :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I understand it to be "I shall" and "you will". It depends on the pronoun.

But English is only my first language.

sorry to say that in law this is not how these words are used in my limited legal knowledge.  Shall Will May Must all are used quite specifically and often poorly in legal contracts especially when there are if then statements, so a lot of it is contextual - probably best no one ever uses shall actually because it is used wrongly so often. 

Will create a promise to do something (in future)

Shall correctly used creates an obligation or duty to do something if possible to do so (in future)

e.g. If X happens, the vessel will retire from the race  (a promise to retire implied immediately if X happens)
e.g. If X happens, the vessel shall retire from the race  (an agreed duty or obligation to take action retire from the race if that is possible at the first available opportunity at which that action can be taken which might not be at the same time as using the word "will")

End result might be the same (vessel retires) but timeline of when it happens might be different, and thus might impact other boats around them etc etc blah blah blah. 

Having written several sets of plain english contracts over the years, I can say it is frigging difficult, the precision to acheive the same result as the normal wordy legal wordings is challenging; simple thinking like Trump or Packer with their idea that the legal profession makes things unnecessarily complex with the expectation you can just 'never have more laws just add one take one away' sounds amazing...but fails to account that the world is getting increasingly more complex and we learn more and more ways to get around things; it would be fine if we could just say like that American DofI We hold these truths to be self-evident, but of course legally, what you find self evident I most certainly might not, and so either we go through a massive case law precedent process where we solve things on the fly case by case...or we spell out every possibility in the 'rules' up front where precision really, really matters.  Doing that in a way a person with sh*te english can understand (most of us) often lacks the nuances that the rules require.  What should be dead simple "measure a sail so we can issue you a rating" ends up needing pages and pages of how to measure the sail, what's allowed, what's not allowed etc etc.  For a f*cking sail, to plow around a course for PHRF or IRC to win zero and just race some douchebags in a f*cking boat.  FFS.  So obviously when something is important like a contract or where the consequence is sending someone to jail or giving them a fine, or paying or not paying out on insurance...the language matters. 

For what it is worth, I don't know what it is about MA and his team, but I've seen Asian regattas where competitors basically tried to gang up on the boat both on the water and the in protest room - he never did anything to me, never saw anything outside of extremely well prepped planning, skilled crew and highly optimised ways to set the boat up - was always fun to race him and he was always polite, and his crew were a bunch of great guys and gals.    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, random. said:

Who said they were equivalents?

This whole digression started when someone questioned "isn't the word SHALL advisory, and MUST is compulsory?" The question was answered days ago B)

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

Saw that, then you conflated Shall and May, my point.

I was simply using (not justifying) the words you'd see in the RRS and typical NOR/SIs, not conflating them. Hopefully we can agree that this statement is inaccurate:

"the word SHALL is advisory, and MUST is compulsory"

And that this statement is more accurate in the context of sailing rules:

"the word MAY is advisory, and SHALL is compulsory"

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, atnan said:

I was simply using (not justifying) the words you'd see in the RRS and typical NOR/SIs, not conflating them. Hopefully we can agree that this statement is inaccurate:

"the word SHALL is advisory, and MUST is compulsory"

And that this statement is more accurate in the context of sailing rules:

"the word MAY is advisory, and SHALL is compulsory"

and that from someone who habitually mis-spells aluminium, colour, harbour etc

The Intro to the RRS states "Other words and terms are used in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use."

So one has to ask oneself, what do ordinary people generally mean when they say "shall"- not the lawyers or the contract authors but people in general. Any other argument is spurious. 

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

and that from someone who habitually mis-spells aluminium, colour, harbour etc

The Intro to the RRS states "Other words and terms are used in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use."

So one has to ask oneself, what do ordinary people generally mean when they say "shall"- not the lawyers or the contract authors but people in general. Any other argument is spurious. 

The IJ course teaches that the word ‘shall’ is obligatory as used in the RRS.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, shanghaisailor said:

The Intro to the RRS states "Other words and terms are used in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use."

So one has to ask oneself, what do ordinary people generally mean when they say "shall"- not the lawyers or the contract authors but people in general. Any other argument is spurious. 

Ordinary people don't use "shall" - it is an affectation these days.  And you wouldn't last long in front of the Australian High Court with that argument.

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

The IJ course teaches that the word ‘shall’ is obligatory as used in the RRS.

Correct.  That is how hopelessly outdated they are - but entire countries are no better so it becomes an issue of using words unnaturally, or differently from their understood meaning, which is a no-no in plain English.  In a legal sense, you simply define the word, and that's what it means - for that document.  The fact that it ordinarily means something different means the drafter has failed or the drafting style is obsolete (from the plain English POV).

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

Correct.  That is how hopelessly outdated they are - but entire countries are no better so it becomes an issue of using words unnaturally, or differently from their understood meaning, which is a no-no in plain English.  In a legal sense, you simply define the word, and that's what it means - for that document.  The fact that it ordinarily means something different means the drafter has failed or the drafting style is obsolete (from the plain English POV).

And with that I Shall bid you adieu until next year, good hunting.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, paps49 said:

And with that I Shall bid you adieu until next year, good hunting.

 

I see what you did there!  Well played.  Don't stay away for the whole year ...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Recidivist said:

I see what you did there!  Well played.  Don't stay away for the whole year ...

Owners of to wooden boats don't have much spare time, lol.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

INTERPRETATION ACT 1987 - SECT 9

Meaning of may and shall

9 Meaning of may and shall

 

(1) In any Act or instrument, the word "may", if used to confer a power, indicates that the power may be exercised or not, at discretion.

(2) In any Act or instrument, the word "shall", if used to impose a duty, indicates that the duty must be performed.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheUltimateSockPuppet said:

The IJ course teaches that the word ‘shall’ is obligatory as used in the RRS.

Precisely - which makes the error of the IJ in the Rolex Middle Sea Race all the stranger

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

Ordinary people don't use "shall" - it is an affectation these days.  And you wouldn't last long in front of the Australian High Court with that argument.

Good job I don't sail in Australia very often then

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

INTERPRETATION ACT 1987 - SECT 9

Meaning of may and shall

9 Meaning of may and shall

 

 

(1) In any Act or instrument, the word "may", if used to confer a power, indicates that the power may be exercised or not, at discretion.

 

(2) In any Act or instrument, the word "shall", if used to impose a duty, indicates that the duty must be performed.

Well, with that DtM, what more is there to say! 

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

The IJ course teaches that the word ‘shall’ is obligatory as used in the RRS.

And in the World Sailing Judges manual every single example of the word "shall" or "shall not" is a definitive - and there are 55 examples in context in that manual and it is quite clear in each and every case they are a definitive.

Those are the rules we play under and remember we are also governed by RRS and agree that we are "bound by the rules (RRS 3.2) not the interpretation of a word by some lawyer (RRS3.3(c).

If you don't like it - go play tiddlywinks

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LB 15 said:

The legend lives on from the Laser sailers on down
Of the big lake that they call an ocean
The lake sailors it is said, would rather give head

 

Than sail on salt water in motion 
At the first sign of rain, they take down the main,
And then they frighten their crew and give their boners a chew,
Bass strait would make them come early.

 

 

 

 

 

LOL well done.

Good grief the sport of sailboat racing has been turned into such a joke.  At least here we can have a good laugh over its downfall.

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

LOL well done.

Good grief the sport of sailboat racing has been turned into such a joke.  At least here we can have a good laugh over its downfall.

Yep. It is sad what the sport has become but if we can not laugh at our selves we are truly fucked. Happy new year to you and yours mate. And to all you cunts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2022 at 7:56 PM, Swanno said:

You sound like an asshole. American by chance?

Yes I'm an american and honestly we haven't ruled out your concern that I *might* be an ass-hole.   But, I'm generally a pleasant... and trainable...ass-hole AND all this bashing on here -which has nothing to do with the Sydney Hobart thread- about me being a "lake sailor" is kinda silly.

It would be equally fair to call me an ocean sailor, a big boat sailor, one design sailor, kitesurfer, and more recently a Moth sailor (Ok, more like 'owner' but I'm getting better :)

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like if the RC wanted to be consistent and drive the safety point home, they could have made all of the boats that demonstrated a delay in responding to VHF calls a party to the protest and, if they found that the boats were deficient in their VHF watches, dinged all of them say half of the delayed response time as they did with Celestial. I wonder if that would have made any difference to the results.

I also wonder if the delays cited from other boats were all delays in responding to VHF calls or if some were delays in responding to sat phone calls/texts and they never got called on VHF.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DtM said:

INTERPRETATION ACT 1987 - SECT 9

Meaning of may and shall

9 Meaning of may and shall

 

 

(1) In any Act or instrument, the word "may", if used to confer a power, indicates that the power may be exercised or not, at discretion.

 

(2) In any Act or instrument, the word "shall", if used to impose a duty, indicates that the duty must be performed.

Hi DtM

I think I made that point - if you are going to use a word to mean something different from it's understood, natural meaning (or to include or exclude things) you define it.  

That's what the IA does.

Every year, hundreds of legislative counsel from around the world have conferences at which learned papers are presented and experienced members speak for the enlightenment of newcomers to the field.  We aren't going to cover the topic fully in a thread about the Sydney-Hobart Race.

Cheers

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

And in the World Sailing Judges manual every single example of the word "shall" or "shall not" is a definitive - and there are 55 examples in context in that manual and it is quite clear in each and every case they are a definitive.

Those are the rules we play under and remember we are also governed by RRS and agree that we are "bound by the rules (RRS 3.2) not the interpretation of a word by some lawyer (RRS3.3(c).

If you don't like it - go play tiddlywinks

Wow, I hadn't realised that the author of the World Sailing Judges Manual was infallible and omniscient. I guess I'd better learn how to play tiddlywinks, whatever that is.  Any campaign for change in the sport of sailing must be cleared first by World Sailing, Shanghai Sailor and Australian Sailing.

Link to post
Share on other sites