johnnysaint
Super Anarchist
- 8,514
- 0
Rule 18 question at a finish mark
- Thread starter ftbinc
- Start date
Turkey Slapper
Super Anarchist
Come on cocksucker!
Name these mates!
Sort me out like you threatened, im waiting!
When i find out who they are, mabe they will be mentioned here as well, they will love that!
Man up johnny, your as weak as piss, im ready for you to sort me cunt!
DoRag
Super Anarchist
Why don't you foreigners take your vulgar foul comments to your own site. No one wants to raed the crap you post.
johnnysaint
Super Anarchist
- 8,514
- 0
Turkey Slapper
Super Anarchist
So your backing down from your threats and lies now you old fuckstain?
Weak as piss!
Name some of these gossip mothers homo!
Oh look, johnny's dad is here as well!
Bite me!
JS and Turkey.
You are both letting yourselves down now.
The bigger man will be the one who stands down.
JS, I'm sorry we couldn't resolve this.
I fear that your stance requires a rule book so big it will be even more intimidating.
The case book and rule books are not meant to be dictionaries too.
Had they used the word 'towards' instead, we maybe wouldn't be having this discussion.
However, I don't think it is improper to use a well known synonym of 'towards'.
That really is absolutely it for me on this.
Dw
You are both letting yourselves down now.
The bigger man will be the one who stands down.
JS, I'm sorry we couldn't resolve this.
I fear that your stance requires a rule book so big it will be even more intimidating.
The case book and rule books are not meant to be dictionaries too.
Had they used the word 'towards' instead, we maybe wouldn't be having this discussion.
However, I don't think it is improper to use a well known synonym of 'towards'.
That really is absolutely it for me on this.
Dw
Seriously concerned about this one. All it does is enable mark traps for team racing (a minority activity) making things dangerous for fleet racing and adds considerably confusion on when a proper course rounding is allowed vs a 'straight to the mark and round from there' rounding that was rightly deemed to need to be added when the zone was increased to 3 lengths (an excellent change).
The last amendment made things simpler and to my mind safer, although more boring. This is about making it more complicated for the sake of retaining racing in it's middle age. A bit like stream train enthusiasts like to see steam trains painted British Rail green rather than their original colour simply because that how they remember them from their child hood.
In all 3 they are sailing to the mark. Only in 1 is the maneuver a prompt one. Or to put it another way, only in 1 is the boat maneuvering promptly to take mark-room through out.
Last edited by a moderator:
Or to put it another way, only in 1 is the boat in the space it would require if it where maneuvering promptly to take mark-room through out.
That last one is the currently accepted interpretation chosen, in my opinion, because it still gives some ability to lay a mark trap in team racing. You are right in saying that this does not require a straight course. The short hand for the course required is 'a corridor'. One that would not constrain the boat to a straight like but none the less does illustrate the bounds of a space defined by prompt action.
Feeling slightly sorry for PEd here.
Basically he had exactly the same argument with me a while ago on here with me arguing for the direct interpretation and him arguing your position (seem to remember BalticBandit being quite involved too).
At the time there was a division of opinion amongst rule wallers and no conclusive Q&A, case etc. etc. In fact there was a reluctance to give one because the reasonably obvious interpretation of the rules as written, rather than the intention in writing them, was for a direct requirement. Remember that the disciplines that involve the most rigorous application of the rule are match and team racing. For that reason a lot of the guys who have an interest in and the best understanding of the operation of the rules also have an interest in match or team racing. The latter in particular relies on interpretations of the rules to make it interesting that are not necessarily the most obvious or even appropriate for fleet racing.
How ever if often comes across the reason IJ/IUs stick to the communally agreed interpretation of the rules and do not comment publicly where there is no agreed interpretation is that, as well as helping out at the local regatta, they operate at the top level of the game. At that level consistency of decision making is highly important. For that reason they occasionally have to tell a competitor something that they may not personally agree with entirely them selves. It's obvious how that may make it hard for them to get in a discussion about it!
They are listening though. The amendment to suddenly allow an outside boat a proper course rounding as well as a mark-room one if a give mark-room boat becomes overlapped inside her came, I would venture, directly from a case raised here on Sailing Anarchy.
There is now consensus on how this should be interpreted. This one is a done deal.
If you want to get stuck into something how about the rules experts deliberately interpreting 'capable of improving the performance of a boat' to protect them selves from getting classed as cat 3 when they get paid to attend regatta or assist a boat or team in working with the rules.
That last one is the currently accepted interpretation chosen, in my opinion, because it still gives some ability to lay a mark trap in team racing. You are right in saying that this does not require a straight course. The short hand for the course required is 'a corridor'. One that would not constrain the boat to a straight like but none the less does illustrate the bounds of a space defined by prompt action.
Feeling slightly sorry for PEd here.
Basically he had exactly the same argument with me a while ago on here with me arguing for the direct interpretation and him arguing your position (seem to remember BalticBandit being quite involved too).
At the time there was a division of opinion amongst rule wallers and no conclusive Q&A, case etc. etc. In fact there was a reluctance to give one because the reasonably obvious interpretation of the rules as written, rather than the intention in writing them, was for a direct requirement. Remember that the disciplines that involve the most rigorous application of the rule are match and team racing. For that reason a lot of the guys who have an interest in and the best understanding of the operation of the rules also have an interest in match or team racing. The latter in particular relies on interpretations of the rules to make it interesting that are not necessarily the most obvious or even appropriate for fleet racing.
How ever if often comes across the reason IJ/IUs stick to the communally agreed interpretation of the rules and do not comment publicly where there is no agreed interpretation is that, as well as helping out at the local regatta, they operate at the top level of the game. At that level consistency of decision making is highly important. For that reason they occasionally have to tell a competitor something that they may not personally agree with entirely them selves. It's obvious how that may make it hard for them to get in a discussion about it!
They are listening though. The amendment to suddenly allow an outside boat a proper course rounding as well as a mark-room one if a give mark-room boat becomes overlapped inside her came, I would venture, directly from a case raised here on Sailing Anarchy.
There is now consensus on how this should be interpreted. This one is a done deal.
If you want to get stuck into something how about the rules experts deliberately interpreting 'capable of improving the performance of a boat' to protect them selves from getting classed as cat 3 when they get paid to attend regatta or assist a boat or team in working with the rules.
Last edited by a moderator:
johnnysaint
Super Anarchist
- 8,514
- 0
Thanks for that reasoned response. I admit I will have to read it again a couple more times to fully absorb it. A darn sight better response than the "I'm God and you're wrong attitude" I've had through this thread from some people.
On your last sentence? - NO THANK YOU, don't want to touch that!
By the way that is the currently chosen interpretation for the definition of mark-room, selected as it allows a boat to hang about in the corridor indefinitely.
It also allows a boat to hang about next to the committee boat at the start claiming a leeward boat can not close it out because it is in the space defined by room.
The inconsistency comes because it is not the interpretation used for RRS11/15/16. There the windward boat is required to act promptly as well as be in a space defined by prompt action.
The issue I still have is that this is picking and choosing your interpretation to result in a desired outcome and not the consistent application of a common understanding of the rules.
... in other words, be careful how you apply this!!!
It also allows a boat to hang about next to the committee boat at the start claiming a leeward boat can not close it out because it is in the space defined by room.
The inconsistency comes because it is not the interpretation used for RRS11/15/16. There the windward boat is required to act promptly as well as be in a space defined by prompt action.
The issue I still have is that this is picking and choosing your interpretation to result in a desired outcome and not the consistent application of a common understanding of the rules.
... in other words, be careful how you apply this!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
