AC36: The Match (6-15th March. Reserve days to the 21st)

So I've been dwelling on the rule 16 interpretation by the umpires. I think I've switch back again to thinking it's not a great idea. So time to re litigate it ;)

I watched Vittorio's counter argument and from what I understood of it (his accent is tough) he was concerned that this interpretation was changing the game, specifically it will prevent what he called "fishtailing". I've got to watch it a few more times to understand exactly what he's saying.....

But while thinking about it, i did come up with another way it is changing the game in a small but significant way.

In a close cross situation, there has always been an area of doubt where it wasn't humanly possible to tell if a boat was just crossing or just failing to cross. I think the way the game had been played is that the benefit of that doubt has always been given to the ROW boat. In real life if it was a very close call and S bore away at the last second to avoid , you are correct.  BUT IRL, if the ROW boat altered course at the last second towards the boat on P that was just crossing or just failing to cross, then S will likely lose that benefit of doubt.  If the ROW boat alters course in a way that  prevented P from KC then rule 16 is turned on. If a judge sees S luff after it is too late for P to duck or tacks then S severally weakens his case,If it wasn't clear that the KC boat was keeping clear, then they will have been penalized regardless of any subsequent change of course by the ROW boat.

But now the technology has removed all but a few cm of that doubt. They can precisely tell if a boat is or isn't across and thus the benefit of that no longer doubtful period is now given 50:50 between the boats. Half to the ROW boat for the precisely determined just not crossing cases; and half to the KC boat for the just squeaking across cases.

So while it may be accurate and according to the rules, it is a shift of the balance the game away from the ROW boat to the KC boat.

So previously if a cross looked doubtful, a near certain penalty awaited any attempt to do so. Now a boat can think there is a 50:50 chance of getting away with a dubious manoeuvre. That can't encourage safe decision making. I do not think 16 changes this burden of proof at all. It merely puts an obligation on S to not make it impossible for P to keep clear.
Rule 16 has not been interpreted differently.  The rule and its interpretation has been in existence for a long time.

Refer to the rule and various Rule 16 cases and also the definition of tacking.  Its a well known and understood rule. Ineos is protected by rule 16 the moment Ineos reaches HTW. Prior to reaching HTW, Ineos is protected by rule 11.

One aspect of the rule is that if boat A  A tacks in such a manner that she would  be keeping clear of B provided that B does not alter course......B cannot alter course in such a manner that A has no way to keep clear.   Its is simple and fair rule to prevent the ROW boat forcing a foul on a KC boat that is trying to keep clear.  

Thus for example if I am on Port and see that I cannot cross S on starboard, I can tack into a leeward position, but while tacking, S cannot bear away into me sharply causing a collision that I cannot avoid. If S does this, then S breaks rule 16. I break rule 13 but then exonerated.

There is no shift in the balance of power.  The change is having better tools to make the correct decision.

When watching live it looked like the right decision to these humble eyes. I laughed when Ken questioned it because he has always been a tad weak on rules 15 and 16 (another story).  In real life with OTW judging, it would be hard to be 100% certain , but because Jimmy kept luffing after Ineos passed head to wind, then most OTW judges are going to give the benefit of the doubt to the tacking boat. 

This is no different to a P/S crossing. If S luffs as P is crossing and then bears away theatricaly to miss P's transom, judges are likely to give rule 16 benefit of doubt to P. If S holds his course and then bears away to miss S's transom, then much more likely to succeed with the umpire.

S has to allow enough room for P to take the appropriate action to keep clear.  S cannot force P to commit a foul when P was previously keeping clear!

I looked at the replay again, and I come to the same conclusion.

Facts Found:

Ineos was clear ahead of LR.  (Thus Ineos is ROW and LR KC)

Ineos luffs reaches HTW and then tacks onto port.  (LR is keep clear boat until Ineos reaches HTW.  Until that moment LR is KC boat. )

LR responds to Ineos maneuver by altering course to windward towards Ineos and maintaining speed. However LR is Keeping Clear of Ineos prior to Ineos reaching HTW.

At the time that Ineos reaches HTW, Ineos and LR are not on a collision course. If LR held her course at that moment, LR would have passed astern of Ineos (Freeze the frame and you can see this)

LR alters continues to alter course to windward threatening a colllision. There is no maneuver that Ineos can make to avoid LR

LR  bears away to pass astern of Ineos. If LR had not altered course when Ineos was tacking she would have passed astern of Ineos.

Conclusion : No Rules were broken. 

Two important points. During the first half of her luff, LR has to keep clear of Ineos because LR is keep clear boat under rule 11.  During the second half of her luff LR has to give Ineos room to keep clear under rule 16.   It was extremely unlikely that Ineos broke a rule in the sequence we saw.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know. It's really shitty drafting. They should never have put a provision relating to the Match in a section dealing with knockout stages. I suspect they wanted to avoid any doubt that the knockout provisions somehow affected the Match (and they do not). Nonetheless, the plain meaning of "There is no final scheduled day in the Match" is exactly what it says, regardless of where it is. 
Not as plain as you might think because the protocol says that when there is conflicting language between the protocol, the conditions and the SIs, the protocol takes preference and the protocol says that match will take place in March.

To make it even more complicated the "conditions" are legally as binding as the protocol and the conditions have that confusing language about the resreve days and racing will continue until the match is complete.

IMHO, they certainly cannot continue beyond March 31 and going beyond March 21 will be tricky unless they sit down and agree what is going to happen,,,,,which would be the sensible thing to do.

 

Priscilla

Super Anarchist
4,154
2,711
Can someone tell me what the "bird" on the NZ sails is meant to represent?  It looks kinda like a red rooster
Yup rooster for now hope it doesn't turn into one of these on Wednesday.

il_570xN.2284275307_df9r.jpg

 

porthos

Super Anarchist
1,070
394
Michigan, USA
Not as plain as you might think because the protocol says that when there is conflicting language between the protocol, the conditions and the SIs, the protocol takes preference and the protocol says that match will take place in March.

To make it even more complicated the "conditions" are legally as binding as the protocol and the conditions have that confusing language about the resreve days and racing will continue until the match is complete.

IMHO, they certainly cannot continue beyond March 31 and going beyond March 21 will be tricky unless they sit down and agree what is going to happen,,,,,which would be the sensible thing to do.
The Match will almost certainly take place in March, so the Protocol will be satisfied.  The Protocol does not say the Match has to end in March.

What you think these provisions mean or what I think they mean is of little value. What matters is what the arbitration panel thinks they mean, because that is where this would end up if there is a disagreement between the Cor/D.  I know that New York courts use a standard set of contractual interpretation rules.  One of those rules is that courts will seek to harmonize all provisions in related agreements so they all have meaning and are not surplusage. Yes, there is a hierarchy of the documents set forth in the Protocol, but a court will look for an interpretation that gives all provisions in all the agreements meaning.  If there is an irreconcilable conflict, then that hierarchy may come in to play, but the ambiguities in these various agreements are not irreconcilable.

The way you harmonize them all is by concluding that the Match has to start in March but does not have a hard end date of March 31.  Otherwise, the RRS provision that the Match has no end date and the Match Conditions that racing will continue until completed are meaningless.  No court would adopt an interpretation that renders those provisions meaningless when there is a way to still give them meaning. I can’t speak to what a New Zealand arbitration panel would do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jaysper

Super Anarchist
10,144
1,282
Wellington
Because you don't see Sydney to Hobart boats picking which keel and measurement certificate to use the day before depending on the forecast (trust me some of them do have multiple).    Currently any well prepared campaign has the possibility to win major events, but if the precedent is set of picking major components of the boat depending of the forecast, then only campaigns with huge budgets will win.   If you can swap foils, then why not keels or even hulls?  Perhaps WOXI could have a fat arsed Comanche-like hull sitting in the shed, ready to swap in if the forecast is suitable.

If our sport goes this way, then we will soon get into endless Ship of Theseus debates... hmmm perhaps better than debating if staying isolated from people who may be infected with a virus is or isn't an effective way to avoid catching the virus??? DUH!
Given that they could swap foils and rudders in Bermuda I don't think it's an unreasonable idea.

 

chesirecat

Super Anarchist
1,149
641
Shoebox on M'way
Given that they could swap foils and rudders in Bermuda I don't think it's an unreasonable idea.
Reg White back in the '70s, used to turn up in the training trials with a new port hull one week, then another new starboard hull next week, then new cross beam and so forth. Same sail number of course. He cottoned on the fact a millimeter here and there, even on the deck/hull radius made a difference and he could make a decision on the day what to assemble. MInd you 470's weren't that much better where one would turn up with a different builder according to the conditions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fuck me, I've looked at these boats thousands of times and have only now just seen what you're talking about -  looks like the beak of a Kiwi.  I always assumed  that ETNZ had a licensing agreement in place to use the Carolina Hurricanes' logo :D
Yep boredom has set in. I just thought was a finger painting, but when the J1 or 2 is up the circle has a koru, NZs national silver fern symbol, centrally. Maybe swirls reference the inner curls.

I liked Te Aihe best of all the boats with a stylised dolphin on the foil arm origins and hull 

Koru_Unfurling.jpeg.jpg

images.jpeg.jpg

 
Rule 16 has not been interpreted differently.  The rule and its interpretation has been in existence for a long time.
I'm not saying differently. Rather the rules are being interpreted precisely and that in itself is enough to change the game. Also it's probably more to do with precisely determining facts found rather than the application of 16.

Facts Found:

...

At the time that Ineos reaches HTW, Ineos and LR are not on a collision course. If LR held her course at that moment, LR would have passed astern of Ineos
It is this fact that has been determined precisely that previously would have been a bit more doubtful. In this specifico case perhaps some eyeballs would have called it the same (eg FB said "i don't think so" when JS said they had a piece of them), but others would have called it a penalty.

So it does seem to me that it gives the likes of BA a bit more encouragement to just throw it in there and gamble. Actually BA was always going to tack there... but if it had been closer (and more dangerous) the precision may still have given him encouragement to try it, knowing that he only needs to be 2cm across.

 

amc

Anarchist
531
102
Auckland
His words and actions suggest previous experience of getting penalties awarded in his favour by continually changing course hunting opponents. This go around seems different.
I don’t think that the umpires data is much better than before, they certainly had similar information last cup. So has the interpretation changed?

 
Top