From Jack Griffin’s Cup Experience - Wait a minute ...

Xlot

Super Anarchist
8,694
1,132
Rome
The Auckland Harbourmaster informed defender ETNZ in January 2020 that courses B and C would not be available on the dates of the CSS round robins, but ETNZ seems not to have informed the Challenger of Record (CoR) Luna Rossa. No mention of the restriction was in the confirmation course areas and configurations sent jointly by the Defender and CoR (COR/D) February 2020.  When, months later, Luna Rossa found out about the harbourmaster restrictions, they filed a protest with the Arbitration Panel.
 
This put things in a slightly different perspective, no?

 

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
11,702
3,122
PNW
Jack’s piece also includes this, in case anyone wants to find a link for it?

  • 1-Nov'20:   Sailing Instructions for AC Match and CSS
 

nav

Super Anarchist
14,029
560
sent jointly by the Defender and CoR (COR/D) February 2020.  When, months later, Luna Rossa found out


This put things in a slightly different perspective, no?
It puts it in a non-sensical perspective that's for sure - (unless for once CoR actually means the Club and not the Team!?)  :blink:

 

Xlot

Super Anarchist
8,694
1,132
Rome
Point is all sane persons were claiming for a piece of paper, now apparently that document exists, but it supports LR’s position!

 

Indio

Super Anarchist
10,970
884
Auckland
Point is all sane persons were claiming for a piece of paper, now apparently that document exists, but it supports LR’s position!
What "document" might that be? It wasn't ETNZ's responsibility to inform the CoR - it was ACE. Besides, the CoR/CoR36 were represented by Mayo&Calder, who agreed to the Harbour Master's decision in the February meeting. Someone's lying, and I believe it's Mayo&Calder, trying to save their contract with CoR36 - explains the review of said contract by LRPP recently.

 

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
11,702
3,122
PNW
What "document" might that be? It wasn't ETNZ's responsibility to inform the CoR - it was ACE. Besides, the CoR/CoR36 were represented by Mayo&Calder, who agreed to the Harbour Master's decision in the February meeting. Someone's lying, and I believe it's Mayo&Calder, trying to save their contract with CoR36 - explains the review of said contract by LRPP recently.
Apparently the COR never signed to the change. No matter what M&C’s role was, it’s irrelevant and a decision has been handed down by the AP, under the governing Protocol.  B&C are excluded unless and until unanimous agreement happens for their (re) inclusion. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Forourselves

Super Anarchist
10,056
2,386
New Zealand
Apparently the COR never signed to the change. No matter what M&C’s role was, it’s irrelevant and a decision has been handed down by the AP, under the governing Protocol.  B&C are excluded unless and until unanimous agreement happens for their (re) inclusion. 
Then they don't need to amend the protocol as it was never changed. Status quo right?

 

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
11,702
3,122
PNW
Then they don't need to amend the protocol as it was never changed. Status quo right?
The Protocol did not change, but the allowed courses did, by the AP’s decision. Until the AP makes a decision to reinstate those 2 courses, they remain out. 

 

Forourselves

Super Anarchist
10,056
2,386
New Zealand
The Protocol did not change, but the allowed courses did, by the AP’s decision. Until the AP makes a decision to reinstate those 2 courses, they remain out. 
The AP ruled if the 2 courses can not be used for the entire CSS, they can't be used at all. Both courses can be used for the entirety of the CSS, therefor, according to the Protocol, they are to be used. The AP does not change the protocol.

 

amc

Anarchist
533
102
Auckland
The AP ruled if the 2 courses can not be used for the entire CSS, they can't be used at all. Both courses can be used for the entirety of the CSS, therefor, according to the Protocol, they are to be used. The AP does not change the protocol.
The decision from the ac website. 
 

[SIZE=17.41px]DECISION[/SIZE]

[SIZE=17.41px]In summary the Panel finds that:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=17.41px]a) If any part of the course area of the CSS and the Match (e.g. Courses B and/or C) are not accessible with no restriction at any time in accordance with Art. 3.4 of the Protocol, then that part of the course area will be used neither for the CSS nor for the Match.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=17.41px]All areas are now available so not applicable. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=17.41px]b) This does in no way restrict COR/D from making further approaches to the Harbour Master and/or any other competent authority in order to attempt to change the current restrictions.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=17.41px]This happened.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=17.41px]c) The Competitors are free to agree on a solution different from what the Panel has decided in point a) above, in which case such solution will apply provided all Competitors unanimously agree thereon.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=17.41px]Never going to happen. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=17.41px]d) The Regatta Director shall allocate the use of the permitted parts of the course area in accordance with the aforesaid and Art. 3.4 of the Protocol.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=17.41px]He can allocate any of the areas now. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=17.41px]e) ETNZ/ACE has not breached the Protocol and/or the VMA.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=17.41px]Okay[/SIZE]

[SIZE=17.41px]f) The Panel will decide that costs are to be shared equally between all Competitors, unless one or more of them submit otherwise within 5 days of this Decision. A final decision on costs will be taken by the Panel once this time limit has passed.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=17.41px]Whatever[/SIZE]

 

hoom

Super Anarchist
6,398
528
Orkland
[SIZE=17.41px]b) This does in no way restrict COR/D from making further approaches to the Harbour Master and/or any other competent authority in order to attempt to change the current restrictions.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=17.41px]This happened.[/SIZE]
That.

Restriction removed -> AP ruling automatically lapses.

 
Last edited by a moderator:




Top