- Thread starter
- #41
My basic question is : irrespective of merit, who wrote the revised RRS and were they discussed with all parties - was there any buy-in from teams?
Richard Slater unilaterally emasculated the AC
- Thread starter Xlot
- Start date
sfigone
Anarchist
I don't think the LR luff was a penalty, but i do think the balance has changed.
Other than boundaries and OCS i think the only penalties have been on Ineos. One for actual contact and one for barging at the start. BA was sailing like it was a plastic Opti on parents day, throwing in manoeuvres that were really close. He had two close calls on port plus he tacked on front of LR and got away with all of them.
Probabky they were all technically correct calls, but previously there was a area of doubt on the water for which the benefit was given to the ROW boat. The technology has now sliced that into: just ok by >2cm; 4 cm of doubt; not ok by >2cm. The benefit of the just ok part is now given to the keep clear boat. It definitely has changed the balance.
Other than boundaries and OCS i think the only penalties have been on Ineos. One for actual contact and one for barging at the start. BA was sailing like it was a plastic Opti on parents day, throwing in manoeuvres that were really close. He had two close calls on port plus he tacked on front of LR and got away with all of them.
Probabky they were all technically correct calls, but previously there was a area of doubt on the water for which the benefit was given to the ROW boat. The technology has now sliced that into: just ok by >2cm; 4 cm of doubt; not ok by >2cm. The benefit of the just ok part is now given to the keep clear boat. It definitely has changed the balance.
Blitzkrieg9
Member
- 220
- 62
In assuming the RRS was agreed upon by COR/D. I'll look thru the protocol and see if it is addressed.
Edit: 16.1.e of the protocol:
the racing rules as agreed and adopted by COR/D in consultation with World Sailing and administered by a Jury and Umpires appointed by COR/D in consultation with World Sailing,
Last edited by a moderator:
Mozzy Sails
Super Anarchist
I disagree. 50m is not enough to control the race when the other boat is on the other tack (which is how the boats often take the penalty). On opposite tacks you really need 100+ to give you meter to give away in tack and 50m to ensure they don't go through your dirty below you after you do tack. That's why the penalties are so lame.I just do not agree with most on how the benefit would have been small.....we now know that if luna rossa passed in front could probably control and win race 1
it is not a trade off between 50 mts advantege to 150 lost...it is a trade off between in front and winning/ behind and following...
If New Zealand looks hit hard after losing race two, imagine if JS fauled PB 20 sec in the first race and LR went to win race 1...would have been a real shocking knock out for the team (and many friends on this forum) and PB would still be shaking now
So if ENTZ pay their penalty by tacking, well it's advantage LR, but it's not a slam dunk. Whereas, LR being 100-150 behind kind of is as it allows ETNZ to sail their own race and not be forces in to trying to cover.
Secondly, LR are are the better tacking boat. As such they have far more opportunity if they keep close as if ETNZ start trying to cover them in a tacking duel, it favours LR.
Lastly, the chance of getting the 50 penalty was so tiny. We know the umpires won't go for momentary luffs or course changes (Jimmy has tried these short 'jabby' luffs twice before and both time no penalty). It's not just that they need to have the overlap, but they to luff up, then hold then hold that high course, with an overlap which the gauge closing so a collision would occur. But these boats just don't have the momentum of an IACC. It's an almost impossible move to pull off from where they attempted.
So it's not just that gain v loss is like 60-40, it's that the chances of success are like 5%. Both sides of the risk - reward equation are stacked against you.
If Jimmy had had any confidence in equal boat speed he would have just tacked out and tried to encourage ETNZ to cover the split and do extra tacks.
Blitzkrieg9
Member
- 220
- 62
I think this is the crux of the issue. COR/D never intended for the rules to be interpreted as they are. The rule about changing course = losing your ROW was intended to prevent intentional dial downs... it was never intended to prevent hooks, lee bows, and luff ups.
And COR/D never expected umpire calls based on 2cm of fidelity and 1° heading changes. The whole "reasonable person" expectation is gone. KR even said regarding the prestart no-penalty in the PC finals that 99% of the time in the real world it would be a penalty. The way the rules are being interpreted is broken.
danstanford
Anarchist
Isn't it really the accuracy of the electronic systems that has changed the application of the rules? Recording who changed course and when can really impact the call as can objective proximity on crosses.
Blame the system not the umpire here who is simply applying the rules as directed using the tools available.
Blame the system not the umpire here who is simply applying the rules as directed using the tools available.
Paddywackery
Super Anarchist
True, it's getting like F1 now where they know when you fart before you do :lol: Judgement becomes almost irrelevant.
The principle author of RRSAC is Richard Slater, who is also Chief Umpire. He has served this role (RRSAC author, Chief Umpire) for several AC iterations. He has been an IJ and IU for more than 15 years.
He is vice-chairman of the World Sailing's Racing Rules Committee.
He is Chairman of the World Sailing High Speed Rules working party.
He is Chairman of the World Sailing Match Racing Rules working party.
The rules are written with input from all AC Competitors and their rules advisors, who also review each draft and provide further input. Ultimately, the RRSAC are reviewed and approved by World Sailing.
This is not done in a vacuum, or unilaterally. Every stakeholder has the opportunity to contribute to the process.
The 50m penalty not being worth it is not really correct in my opinion. JS knew he was in a compromised position and would be controlled by ETNZ coming off the boundary and it would be race over given the lack of passing lanes we've seen so far. If he had been successful drawing the penalty with what was admittedly a low-% luff, he would have taken the lead and controlled the race. As we've seen in these races there's a big difference between leading and covering vs chasing down / trying to pass so it's worth the trailing boat trying the 50/50 moves IMO
- Thread starter
- #51
Thanks. However:
And:
How top experts can make a world-class clusterfuck
The same 2cm level of precision has been used since the beginning of high-speed match racing in AC34. The way this would all be applied should not be a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to the development of the technology used for umpiring in high speed events such as the AC and SailGP.
Watch the videos of the on-water umpires tearing around at 40+ knots and positioning themselves to try to get the best on-water view of developing situations, as you would in normal-speed umpiring. Frankly, without the in-booth technology that is used to make the toughest calls practical, you would see the real potential for a "world-class clusterfuck" when it comes to umpiring boats of this type.
Have you ever known any sailor who is 100% satisfied with the umpiring, especially when he/she gets dinged?
Neither the rules nor the technology is stagnant. Both are continual works in progress.
Your logic is questionable. A collision at a closing speed of 80 knots would be disastrous. You complete the cross, avoid the collision, fly the flag, and the computer determines whether there would have been a collision with oversite by the committee. It's the ONLY way to do it. It's not like bumper boats in 5 knot shitboxes.
Kiwing
Super Anarchist
Explain how you could have a collision at 80knots?
Most likely a brush with both yachts going roughly the same direction and the collision speed of 10 knots but it would still be bad.
Let's hope that does not happen.
Most likely a brush with both yachts going roughly the same direction and the collision speed of 10 knots but it would still be bad.
Let's hope that does not happen.
Lost in Translation
Super Anarchist
I learned from this thread that the rules are not what we all sail to a larger degree than typical match racing. For instance, most of us on starboard might bear off a bit and accelerate upwind in a port / starboard situation to make sure the port boat plans for the cross and tacks away or ducks.
This AC is different in that any course change has to give room to avoid to the degree that many situations that the average sailor would view as an infraction are no longer ones. This is a way to facilitate safety in high speed sailing but something quite different from what we are used to. As noted above, Ken Read couldn't understand how LR was not allowed to come up when Ineos was trying to cross.
This AC is different in that any course change has to give room to avoid to the degree that many situations that the average sailor would view as an infraction are no longer ones. This is a way to facilitate safety in high speed sailing but something quite different from what we are used to. As noted above, Ken Read couldn't understand how LR was not allowed to come up when Ineos was trying to cross.
What this thread is showing is that a lot of people don't properly understand the rules. The right of way rules for this cup are essentially the same as the rules used in fleet racing and match racing around the world. The biggest change these rules have made, is virtually making the hulls of the boats larger so that the keep clear boat needs to stay further away. This isn't too different to what some match racing events do with sticks sticking off the stern to artificially extend the length of the boat and avoid damage.
Talking about the two main incidents in question:
- LR luff vs. ETNZ - LR luffed, well within their rights under RRS11, they satisfied the requirement of RRS16 as ETNZ had the room to keep clear. LR was simply just too far behind to get up to ETNZ. On-water umpires would have made the same call, as it was clear that ETNZ was clear ahead when LR got up to their line.
- INEOS vs. LR Port/Starboard - Ineos tacks onto port and is crossing LR, LR heads up to hunt, but by the time they start heading up, Ineos's only option to avoid the collision is to continue on her current course. LR didn't satisfy RRS16 in allow ineos room to keep clear. How this gets called with on-water umpires is very dependent on their positioning, if they one of the boats is positioned behind LR, they will see the course change and probably green flag. What LR needed to do was start sailing the higher angle before Ineos tacks to actually block the tack.
There are marginal calls in match racing all the time, these umpires luckily have the tools to call the race more accurately to the rules than has been possible before. A lack of penalties doesn't mean the match racing is bad, it just means everyone is following the rules. Are we really surprised that some of the best sailors in the world are able to race closely while not fouling each other?
