Middle Sea Race 2021

[The Dark Knight]

From the SA FB page







 

[SIZE=.9375rem]A follow-up to the post below...[/SIZE]



[SIZE=.9375rem]To say that the Rolex Middle Sea race completely screwed the pooch in this edition of the race would be alarmingly accurate, figuratively speaking. [/SIZE]



[SIZE=.9375rem]Below is what Sunrise navigator Tom Cheney had to say… It is our understanding that Sunrise received a three-minute standing ovation at the prizegiving last night. There was a cringeworthy speech from a Rolex representative about the integrity of the race and you could have cut the tension in the room with a knife. [/SIZE]
 



[SIZE=.9375rem]69 boats finished the full racecourse. 23 were still racing when the course was shortened. Approximately 24 hours after we finished a notice was issued stating that an alternative finish was to be used. The sailing instructions do have a section describing how the race might be shortened at Camino (the strait between Malta and Gozo) 13 miles before the finish and without rounding the final mark of the course. The PRO acknowledged that he’d never intended to use 11.3 after a boat had finished.[/SIZE]



[SIZE=.9375rem]SI 11.3 doesn’t amend the RRS on how to shorten the course (see RRS 86). The RRS is pretty clear that you can’t shorten the course after a boat has finished (RRS 32). I completely understand the safety aspect of this but I’m a pretty strong believer in the decision to race, and the weather was never that severe.[/SIZE]



[SIZE=.9375rem]My issue is the timing and that I don’t believe the SIs allow them to shorten the course after a boat has finished.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=.9375rem]In my first redress hearing, the international jury ruled it was not a shortened course but an “alternative finish line”. When the hearing was over and I pointed out that the fairway mark outside the usual finish is a mark of the course three jurors’ mouths fell open.[/SIZE]



[SIZE=.9375rem]I applied to reopen but they denied – no new evidence. In an effort to point out the ridiculous nature of their decision I then suggested that I needed redress because we didn’t sail round the fairway mark and to their “alternative finish” line. I also tried to protest Comanche for the same reason (I did chat to Mitch Booth on the phone to make sure they knew I wasn’t actually accusing them of doing anything wrong. He said he’d be doing something similar in my position).[/SIZE]
 
 



[SIZE=.9375rem]The race committee members are screaming at each other and don’t know how to fix it.[/SIZE]



[SIZE=.9375rem]How can you finish a 600-mile race as the winner and then the RC change the course/shorten the course after you finish?[/SIZE]

 















 

 

[Livia]

You never raced under IMS constructed courses then

 

[Roleur]

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 both ways.  Either no record, or no handicap win.  

Sunrise won the Middle Sea Race.  There are only a few people in sailing who don't agree with that.  

 

[JimC]

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? 

Seems straightforward enough to me. Comanche sailed both courses and was timed on both courses, so she set a record on the harbour finish course.

The harbour finish wasn't available for all boats so it would obviously be unfair to use it for overall results. The race is about all the competitors, not just the ones at the front.

The course wasn't shortened, it was just shorter. Its pretty obvious this was deliberate wording by the OA to avoid the rule issues if they had called it a shortened course. Yes its not a clever move to have a finish that may not be open to all boats, but pretty unlucky to have first place change over that last bit of track. Its obviously not a regular problem.

 

[Lynch]

This is the most egregious decision by an OA and Jury in a long time. 32.2 clearly states that the course must be shortened before the first boat finishes. The corollary must be that the course cannot be shortened after one boat has finished. The SIs make no mention of a change to this rule. 
There may have been a race which finished at the shortened line but it was not the Middle Sea Race.

Sunrise and her crew have been royally screwed by this decision. The OA and the jury should hang their heads in shame for such an appalling decision.

 

[Snowden]

Seems straightforward enough to me. Comanche sailed both courses and was timed on both courses, so she set a record on the harbour finish course.

If you read Sunrise's navigator's comments, no boat correctly sailed the "alternative finish" course, as the last mark before the harbour was still a mark of that course!

 

[PuckSoppet]

These guys are clueless. https://www.facebook.com/1583234868603757/posts/2960777517516145/?d=n

 

[shanghaisailor]

Seems straightforward enough to me. Comanche sailed both courses and was timed on both courses, so she set a record on the harbour finish course.

The harbour finish wasn't available for all boats so it would obviously be unfair to use it for overall results. The race is about all the competitors, not just the ones at the front.

The course wasn't shortened, it was just shorter. Its pretty obvious this was deliberate wording by the OA to avoid the rule issues if they had called it a shortened course. Yes its not a clever move to have a finish that may not be open to all boats, but pretty unlucky to have first place change over that last bit of track. Its obviously not a regular problem.

Such a load of crap! I hope you never serve on a PC. RRS 32 applies whatever fancy words a race committee puts round the fact that they have shortened the course.

"The course wasn't shortened, it was just shorter" Do you even read what you write? Are you implying the course had some sort of AI and shortened itself?

I invite you to read two simple things, Firstly the RRS Introduction - I doubt if you even know where that is but it is at the front of the book. It states that the meanings of the words in the RRS are the same as in general usage.

Secondly take a look at a dictionary if you possess one and look up "Shorten" depending on the version it states things like "to reduce in length" or "the action of making shorter"

Quite simply the action of using an "alternative finish line" shortened (I'll make it easy for you - made shorter) and reduced the length of the race from 606Nm to 593 Nm.

Add to the fact that as per Rule J2.1 (b) they made no alteration to RRS 32, then that rule still applied in an unaltered manner.

The RC's "deliberate wording" was inadequate. If however it HAD included something along the lines of "This deletes/changes RRS 32" then there would be no issues. However they didn't so RRS32 was still applicable - that's the rules.

Ask Santa Claus for a rule book. 

Regular problem or not, it is a problem created by the RC and as such redress should have been given.

If you read Sunrise's navigator's comments, no boat correctly sailed the "alternative finish" course, as the last mark before the harbour was still a mark of that course!

And he's right. The "alternative finish" instruction only detailed an alternative finish, it did not remove any marks of the course. The Fairway buoy was a published mark of the course so to reach the "alternative finish line" (which was only introduced because of severe weather not a time limit issue or some) such boats should have sailed to the Fairway buoy and then backtracked to the "alternative finish line" therefore satisfying the piece of string concept.  The 69 boats which had already finished sailed through the alternative finish line THEN the Fairway buoy and on to the original finish so their piece of string won't work. The boats that finished after the "alternative finish line" was announced didn't first round the Fairway Buoy yet were recorded as finished.

So either the whole fleet didn't satisfy this piece of string concept as per RRS28.1 and should all be recorded DSQ for not sailing the course or the RC accepts that the whole fleet sailed through the "alternative finish line" on a shorter (remember to be shorter it has to be SHORTENED) course and therefore subject to RRS 32 whatever the crazy International Jury says.

I wonder where they learned their English? 

 

[JimC]

I hope you feel a bit happier tomorrow.

 

[TJSoCal]

For those that think this was a horrible, awful, no-good decision, what alternative do you propose given the facts found as they exist (not the "woulda-shoulda-coulda"  or "if only" alternative facts).

What different conclusions would you reach, and what alternative decision do you think would have been fairest for all boats, including the ~40% of the fleet that was still racing when the alternative finish line was invoked?

Abandon? NSC everyone without a hearing? Give Sunrise the win and screw Comanche & the slow boats?

As for course record, it appears it's based on average speed and not necessarily the full 606 mile course. So does Comanche still set a new record if their finish time at the alternative line is used?

The John Ripard Trophy will be awarded to the monohull boat that breaks the course record established in 2007 by ”Rambler”. The course record is 47hrs 55mins 03secs, over a distance of 606 miles. The course record will be decided by taking the highest average speed over the particular course sailed and the John Ripard Trophy will be awarded if this average speed is greater than 12.64 knots established in 2007

 

[TCNav]

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

Are you ok hun?

 

[PuckSoppet]

What different conclusions would you reach, and what alternative decision do you think would have been fairest for all boats, including the ~40% of the fleet that was still racing when the alternative finish line was invoked?

Abandon? NSC everyone without a hearing? Give Sunrise the win and screw Comanche & the slow boats?

The RC were in a tough spot. The RRS does not let them shorten the course after a boat has finished. They probably could have done something fairer than affecting the order of 6 of the top 10 after they had finished though. Breaking the RRS to shorten the course was an improper action that affected the result of some boats in a negative way. Therefore they should get redress.

Could the RC not have not just acknowledged that they had to break RRS and suggested that the small boats (that had not been able to finish correctly) get redress based on average VMG or similar?

 

[TJSoCal]

Well, the International Jury has ruled that invoking an alternative finish line in SIs, independent of rule 32, is allowed (or at least isn’t prohibited) by RRS and does not constitute an improper action. Opinions may differ but that’s the current ruling (and, under 70.5, not subject to appeal). The error was in not explicitly removing the Valletta fairway buoy when the alternative line was invoked resulting in ambiguity, which will probably be fixed next time.

Seems to me the whole purpose of SI 11.3 is to allow the RC to invoke the alternative line if safety conditions warrant and still preserve a fair race for all boats. In other words, the SI anticipates that an alternative line may have to be invoked after some boats have finished at the regular finish line but while others are still racing. That’s different from the intent and effect of a rule 32 shortening and seems appropriate for the circumstances of Middle Sea.

 

[Schnick]

Two years ago we were finishing a race (part of a multi-race series), second to last leg, and the RC boat came alongside and said to go home, wind dying, race is abandoned.  We thanked them and motored to the dock.  Meanwhile the 3 faster boats in div ignored the RC, finished, and got scored.  I had to go to the room for redress.  The only possible way to fairly discharge the situation was to throw the race out, but the PC was not willing to ruffle multiple boat's feathers due to the RC's screwup.  Eventually they said, "well, what score would you take to let this drop?".   I said first place.  I don't remember when I caved but I think we got redress of average points for that race.  Moral of the story, PC's will almost always lack the will to do something unpopular even when it's the right thing.  We came out of that tied for first, so it definitely changed the regatta score.

We have a lot of races in the PNW with a 'take your own time mid-race' alternate finish clause.  They are nearly always problematic.  Do you tack and throw away leverage that you've built up for hours, just to get a better mid course time on the off chance that the course is later shortened?  One boat in a division just makes it under the time limit by 1 second, or worse does not make it by one second - someone feels wronged no matter what the RC does.  The whole situation is fraught with the dangers of people who think they're doing the 'right' thing, and as noted in this MSR incident, the rule is almost never written properly in the SIs.

 

[TJSoCal]

someone feels wronged no matter what the RC does.

Race Officials' Motto: "We're not happy until you're not happy." 

 

[PuckSoppet]

Seems to me the whole purpose of SI 11.3 is to allow the RC to invoke the alternative line if safety conditions warrant and still preserve a fair race for all boats. In other words, the SI anticipates that an alternative line may have to be invoked after some boats have finished at the regular finish line but while others are still racing. That’s different from the intent and effect of a rule 32 shortening and seems appropriate for the circumstances of Middle Sea.

I agree that this seems like the probable intent. It would be legal if they had just added "This amends RRS 32" at the end of SI 11.3. Without that I just cannot fathom how it is legal. Rather than interpret the wooly language you have to look at the actions of the RC. The "new, shorter course" that has one less mark and is 13 miles... less long?! is changing the course to a shorter course after a boat has finished.

Course was long... then course got shorter = course was shortened and needs to be governed by RRS 32.

 

[Fiji Bitter]

In short: everybody fucked up!

Rule 69 for bringing the sport into disrepute, 1 year ban for all competitors, RC, and Jury.

Harsh but true.

 

[TJSoCal]

According to the International Jury it all would have been legal if the SI had just deleted the Valletta fairway buoy as a mark when the alternative finish line was invoked. Opinions may vary as to the legality of the "alternative finish line" without changing 32 but the IJ's conclusion is that it's fine and their conclusion prevails.

Suppose the OA does write their SI to change RRS 32 to allow shortening the course after some boats have finished the original course (which is the purpose of SI 11.3 as written) and then the RC invokes the shortened course when some boats have finished the original course while others are still sailing, how does that change the result?

Other than maybe Sunrise and some others whose final results were worsened still feel hard done by but have no cause for redress? I think everyone still gets scored based on finish times at the alternative/shortened finish line.

 

[PuckSoppet]

So if the OA writes their SI to change RRS 32 to allow shortening the course after some boats have finished the original course (which is the purpose of SI 11.3 as written) and then the RC invokes the shortened course when some boats have finished the original course while others are still sailing, how does that change the result?

Other than maybe Sunrise and some others whose final results were worsened still feel hard done by but have no cause for redress? I think everyone still gets scored based on finish times at the alternative/shortened finish line.

If the OA writes their SI to change RRS 32 to allow shortening the course after some boats have finished then we get the same final result as now. This is a hypothetical question.

The OA did not do that, so the fact that their action worsened the results of a bunch of boats is an issue. Six boats in the top 10 were affected. Their action should be deemed "improper" and therefore should not be able to detriment the results of boats that are finished. Boats whose score made worse should be entitled to redress.

 

[TJSoCal]

If the OA writes their SI to change RRS 32 to allow shortening the course after some boats have finished then we get the same final result as now. This is a hypothetical question.

The OA did not do that, so the fact that their action worsened the results of a bunch of boats is an issue. Six boats in the top 10 were affected. Their action should be deemed "improper" and therefore should not be able to detriment the results of boats that are finished. Boats whose score made worse should be entitled to redress.

I could argue that they did get redress. The redress given (the fairest outcome for all boats given the nature and effect of the improper action) was finishing places at the alternative line. Now if some boats had sailed to Valletta buoy and returned to Comino to finish in the other direction, that would have been a mess to sort out...

Note that nobody whose results were made better were complaining on principle. If Sunrise had been in front of Comanche at the alternative line but Comanche corrected on them in the last 13 miles, they'd both be arguing out of the other side of their mouths.