Jury Decision

WetHog

Super Anarchist
8,605
421
Annapolis, MD USA
After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.
Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

WetHog :ph34r:

 
now we will soon see how the or will perform with old style winglets in the bearaway?? should be veeery interesting to watch??

If RC is correct, it will not phase them as they have foiled using class legal rudders without a performance drop

If PC is correct, then OR will only lose 0.00x kts of boat speed by changing to protocol legal rudders.

If SA posters are correct OR will immediately return to B1 - floppy submarine status

Sounds like a new "place your bets on the effects" thread...

 

sam75

Member
228
0
Boston, MA
I think this is called a shot gun approach

173. "

ACRM, ACEA, GGYC and OTUSA submitted that if they were not able to succeed with their arguments with regard to Protocol Article 16, 13.2, and 58.1 to effect the Class Rule
changes provided for in Regatta Notice 189, then the Jury has power to make the Class Rule change under Article 15.4 ( B) . The Jury was implored to do this in order to enable the Event to proceed."
 

K38BOB

Super Anarchist
4,474
2
Bay Area
84. The Captains explained the role with respect to the maritime environment.

That role includes regulating commercial traffic and recreational users of the Bay. It

does not include imposing design regulations on the event participants. They also

explained the process by which an Event Sponsor obtains a Marine Event Permit.
And this from a witness called by ACRM!
There's little doubt in my mind that ACRM knew this better than anyone including our fair readers. JC has been working with the USCG in SF - navigating the waters for racing near and over the shipping lanes with the CG and VSC -for years. The purpose of this witness (my take) is to get all of the facts around this out in the open, and in particular to the jury.
He's been an excellent PRO for years. Not sure how close he's been to the permit process-especially during special circumstances/incidents and the aftermath.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

pusslicker

Super Anarchist
2,178
909
Paris
now we will soon see how the or will perform with old style winglets in the bearaway?? should be veeery interesting to watch??

If RC is correct, it will not phase them as they have foiled using class legal rudders without a performance drop

If PC is correct, then OR will only lose 0.00x kts of boat speed by changing to protocol legal rudders.

If SA posters are correct OR will immediately return to B1 - floppy submarine status

Sounds like a new "place your bets on the effects" thread...
According to the guys in the Oracle thread they have never sailed with legal elevators. Why would they start now?

 

GauchoGreg

Super Anarchist
5,169
161

Good statement from GD. Again, my biggest issue was always forcing AR out by making them comply with some rules but not letting them have other opportunity that was allowed them through the recommendations. But this solution, by GD, assuming they can secure unanimous consent, would solve that issue.

 

pjfranks

Super Anarchist
2,485
0
i'm loving it
I think this is called a shot gun approach

173. "

ACRM, ACEA, GGYC and OTUSA submitted that if they were not able to succeed with their arguments with regard to Protocol Article 16, 13.2, and 58.1 to effect the Class Rule
changes provided for in Regatta Notice 189, then the Jury has power to make the Class Rule change under Article 15.4 ( B) . The Jury was implored to do this in order to enable the Event to proceed."
paging stingray. clean up required in aisle 42,

 

GauchoGreg

Super Anarchist
5,169
161
After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.
Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

WetHog :ph34r:
^This, +++10000

 
This from the GGYC's submission:

"If the Safety Recommendations were cherry picked, GGYC would face huge liability issues and the Regatta is likely not to continue."
Yes, it's interesting that, in some ways, the Jury has called the bluff of the Event Sponsors. They now face the task of swallowing their past claims and informing the USCG that the event will go forward on the old rules. Of course, it sounds like their communication to the Coast Guard will also include "oh, by the way, AR thinks the event is now unsafe and we kinda agree, but ENTZ and LR are fine with it." Will have to be one of the strangest MEP amendments Sector SF has yet received!

 

dent

Member
155
27
what if and a big if....

AR comes out with a crazy fast boat and their "allowable" rudders end up beating ETNZ and LR, goes onto the Cup finals and wins. All because they were the only boat to be able to use the "new" rudders.

though I think allowing AR to use the rudders is very sportsman like but if they do end up winning, it'll be another can of worms.

 

GauchoGreg

Super Anarchist
5,169
161
what if and a big if....

AR comes out with a crazy fast boat and their "allowable" rudders end up beating ETNZ and LR, goes onto the Cup finals and wins. All because they were the only boat to be able to use the "new" rudders.

though I think allowing AR to use the rudders is very sportsman like but if they do end up winning, it'll be another can of worms.
The solution to that would be having a sunset clause that requires them to be fully compliant by either the LV finals, or the AC, itself.

 

pjfranks

Super Anarchist
2,485
0
i'm loving it
what if and a big if....

AR comes out with a crazy fast boat and their "allowable" rudders end up beating ETNZ and LR, goes onto the Cup finals and wins. All because they were the only boat to be able to use the "new" rudders.

though I think allowing AR to use the rudders is very sportsman like but if they do end up winning, it'll be another can of worms.
the answer is simple they can compete but not score if they use the big stabilizers

 
Last edited by a moderator:

sam75

Member
228
0
Boston, MA
84. The Captains explained the role with respect to the maritime environment.

That role includes regulating commercial traffic and recreational users of the Bay. It

does not include imposing design regulations on the event participants. They also

explained the process by which an Event Sponsor obtains a Marine Event Permit.
And this from a witness called by ACRM!
There's little doubt in my mind that ACRM knew this better than anyone including our fair readers. JC has been working with the USCG in SF - navigating the waters for racing near and over the shipping lanes with the CG and VSC -for years. The purpose of this witness (my take) is to get all of the facts around this out in the open, and in particular to the jury.
He's been an excellent PRO for years. Not sure how close he's been to the permit process-especially during special circumstances/incidents and the aftermath.
I don't know why ACRM and ACEA based a large part of the argument on needing to change the Class Rules in order to satisfy the MEP, and then called a witness from the CG who said, we don't impose design regulations on event participants.

I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like the ETNZ legal team did a good job of anticipating and debunking arguments put forward by ACRM, ACEA, GGYC and OTSUA.

 
I'm not at all surprised that the USCG have said they don't dictate design rules - there have been many posts on SA saying virtually the same thing (hey SWS, looks like my "vibe" was correct after-all :p ).

Anyway, a good result from the IJ and let's get on with it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dixie

Reporters
3,626
0
SF
84. The Captains explained the role with respect to the maritime environment.

That role includes regulating commercial traffic and recreational users of the Bay. It

does not include imposing design regulations on the event participants. They also

explained the process by which an Event Sponsor obtains a Marine Event Permit.
And this from a witness called by ACRM!
There's little doubt in my mind that ACRM knew this better than anyone including our fair readers. JC has been working with the USCG in SF - navigating the waters for racing near and over the shipping lanes with the CG and VSC -for years. The purpose of this witness (my take) is to get all of the facts around this out in the open, and in particular to the jury.
He's been an excellent PRO for years. Not sure how close he's been to the permit process-especially during special circumstances/incidents and the aftermath.
more than a PRO for StFYC...check your history. But that's not really relevant in this overall discussion.

 

Man Overboard

Member
312
7
Of course, what's wrong with this? It's not like he's saying that AR can race and score points... I think the principle is a sporting one. As said above - 'let them compete but they must comply to win'.

I'm sure they'd apply the same principle to the actual AC - "sure OTUSA can defend with any design they want, however if it doesn't comply with the Class Rules they can't score any points". ;)


After a very quick review, here are some summary points -- disclaimer, I said very quick . . .

* The Jury praised the Regatta Director as experienced and impartial, but upheld the jurisdictional objection.
Ultimately, the only decision I care about. A large number of you owe IM an apology for doing your best to drag the man's name in the mud.

WetHog :ph34r:

Well he did make a very significant professional error in judgement that obviously exceeded his authority and cost many competitors a lot of money, some of it totally wasted.

I'm not suggesting is name is "mud" but equally, those that criticised his actions (not his person) were entirely justified.

I'm sure he had good intentions but he exercised them incorrectly and when you're in a position of significant influence and do this it's called professional negligence.

He made a very, very serious mistake and should be held to account for that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

pberning

New member
18
0
What was IM thinking? It's all about liability and giving the ~appearance~ of caring about safety, is my guess.

So he needed to develop a process, any process, even a stupid process, to show the judge when it goes to court.

 

~Stingray~~

Super Anarchist
22,861
28
Been too busy to read everything and try to figure this one out yet:

Are we sure that rudder-elevators revert to having no minimum size, as in the original Design Rule?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Xlot

Super Anarchist
8,697
1,139
Rome
This from the GGYC's submission:

"If the Safety Recommendations were cherry picked, GGYC would face huge liability issues and the Regatta is likely not to continue."
(cue in Lou Reed)

And the Alinghi Friends go

"BO FD BO FD BO FD FD BO ..."

 
Last edited by a moderator:




Top