SailGP 2021

dg_sailingfan

Super Anarchist
2,699
521
Augsburg
@smackdaddy

SailGP CEO Russell Coutts replied to a Question on FB I asked SailGP.

BIG NEWS smack:

The Grand Final in San Francisco in 2022 will be a Podium Race not a Match Race.

STANDINGS AFTER AARHUS

E9Uct9WWEAMY9S6


Given that the "GRAND FINAL" will be a Podium Race Australia & Great Britain sitting pretty. The Brits have already a 4-Point lead over 4th Place United States and 7-Point lead over the New Zealanders.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

smackdaddy

Super Anarchist
6,144
588
SmackDab, Middle
@smackdaddy

SailGP CEO Russell Coutts replied to a Question on FB I asked SailGP.

BIG NEWS smack:

The Grand Final in San Francisco in 2022 will be a Podium Race not a Match Race.

STANDINGS AFTER AARHUS



Given that the "GRAND FINAL" will be a Podium Race Australia & Great Britain sitting pretty. The Brits have already a 4-Point lead over 4th Place United States and 7-Point lead over the New Zealanders.
Hopefully that will mean more money in the Grand Final. And, as we saw today, the 3 boat final can be very, very interesting.

 

Desert Wings

New member
When boats are not overlapped, the boat that entered the zone first has the right to go around the mark.
The issue I see is that a right to go around the mark has to expire at some point.  As you say, Nathan did not appear to have any intention to go round the mark.  Both boats have turned to starboard (partly a right shift perhaps), as seen from both wakes.  With Ben still keeping outside the circle, there is room for Nathan to tack...with Ben then holding his course to keep clear.  Once it was apparent that Nathan wasn't tacking, Ben was free to round the mark with no restrictions.

It would appear from the umpires decision that the rights are not expiring when the opportunity to tack has passed!

Do SGP issue interpretations/updates to their rules?

Yep, not for wimps, but rules need to be understandable and interpretations consistent for both the participants and us sailors watching..... not a concern for SGP perhaps?  

 

dg_sailingfan

Super Anarchist
2,699
521
Augsburg
@smackdaddy

These Statisticians at SAILGP definitly need to do a better job when they pull these kind of Stats out of their bag because it is nowhere near accurate

vlcsnap-2021-08-22-19h02m26s706.png

They left out Bens Race Win in Aarhus (Race 3) and they throw Bens Performance in Sydney 2020 completely under the bus.

NOT GOOD, NOT GOOD AT ALL!

 
Last edited by a moderator:

smackdaddy

Super Anarchist
6,144
588
SmackDab, Middle
The issue I see is that a right to go around the mark has to expire at some point.  As you say, Nathan did not appear to have any intention to go round the mark.  Both boats have turned to starboard (partly a right shift perhaps), as seen from both wakes.  With Ben still keeping outside the circle, there is room for Nathan to tack...with Ben then holding his course to keep clear.  Once it was apparent that Nathan wasn't tacking, Ben was free to round the mark with no restrictions.

It would appear from the umpires decision that the rights are not expiring when the opportunity to tack has passed!

Do SGP issue interpretations/updates to their rules?

Yep, not for wimps, but rules need to be understandable and interpretations consistent for both the participants and us sailors watching..... not a concern for SGP perhaps?  
First, what you just went through happens in probably 2 seconds within the critical window of this particular rule. So this idea of "expiration" is a little far-fetched. Here you can see that JPN has just entered the mark zone - WAY ahead of GBR even being close...

IMG_0148.PNG

JPN's track shows they are moving toward WG1. And GBR is slowly arcing upward - but not making any significant moves to avoid.. The umps see this developing and immediately zoom into the area as you can see below...

IMG_0149.PNG

And just now, less than 2 seconds later, JPN starts a clear dip down to avoid GBR - who is still not in the zone. Yet GBR has still not yet altered their course in any significant way and is headed right into the zone just ahead of JPN.

My hunch is that this is exactly when JPN calls the protest. They absolutely have the right to round WG1 - but clearly can't with GBR on its current course. So JPN takes evasive action to avoid a collision and calls the protest. That's the story the umps hear.

Again, this is all perfectly kosher per the rules. JPN has every right to protest this rule as GBR continues its course into the zone, crowding JPN even more - and, again, the umps are all over this with the data (not just watching it on the tele like most)...

IMG_0150.PNG

Looking at these tracks it's clear that JPN, not GBR, took the evasive action. This is what umps see, and they make their call. And it is the right call per the rules.

Second, as to "expiration of rights", I think we would agree that those rights certainly will not have expired in the 2-3 seconds in the above 3 screenshots while JPN was still in the zone. How and at exactly what time JPN might choose to whip their boat to port for some crazy tack around WG1 is NOT the concern of - nor the business of - the umpires. Only the rule I pointed out is at play right now. And GBR clearly took away JPN's option at WG1 for the entire 2-3 seconds that opportunity to tack was available to JPN. So - easy call. Game over.

Finally, there is the issue of "intent" - like "C'mon, there is no way Nathan would have tacked around WG1 there. That would be a stupid tactical move. So it's all a BS call." None of that matters. He had the right to do it, so if he says he couldn't due to GBR - and you see the data above - then, again, game over. Easy call.

I think it was a brilliant tactical protest that, though right on the edge of believability, worked perfectly. That's racing. Well-done to Nathan. And Ben just needs to nut up, quit whining, and sail better.

 

dg_sailingfan

Super Anarchist
2,699
521
Augsburg
First, what you just went through happens in probably 2 seconds within the critical window of this particular rule. So this idea of "expiration" is a little far-fetched. Here you can see that JPN has just entered the mark zone - WAY ahead of GBR even being close...

View attachment 458941

JPN's track shows they are moving toward WG1. And GBR is slowly arcing upward - but not making any significant moves to avoid.. The umps see this developing and immediately zoom into the area as you can see below...

View attachment 458942

And just now, less than 2 seconds later, JPN starts a clear dip down to avoid GBR - who is still not in the zone. Yet GBR has still not yet altered their course in any significant way and is headed right into the zone just ahead of JPN.

My hunch is that this is exactly when JPN calls the protest. They absolutely have the right to round WG1 - but clearly can't with GBR on its current course. So JPN takes evasive action to avoid a collision and calls the protest. That's the story the umps hear.

Again, this is all perfectly kosher per the rules. JPN has every right to protest this rule as GBR continues its course into the zone, crowding JPN even more - and, again, the umps are all over this with the data (not just watching it on the tele like most)...

View attachment 458943

Looking at these tracks it's clear that JPN, not GBR, took the evasive action. This is what umps see, and they make their call. And it is the right call per the rules.

Second, as to "expiration of rights", I think we would agree that those rights certainly will not have expired in the 2-3 seconds in the above 3 screenshots while JPN was still in the zone. How and at exactly what time JPN might choose to whip their boat to port for some crazy tack around WG1 is NOT the concern of - nor the business of - the umpires. Only the rule I pointed out is at play right now. And GBR clearly took away JPN's option at WG1 for the entire 2-3 seconds that opportunity to tack was available to JPN. So - easy call. Game over.

Finally, there is the issue of "intent" - like "C'mon, there is no way Nathan would have tacked around WG1 there. That would be a stupid tactical move. So it's all a BS call." None of that matters. He had the right to do it, so if he says he couldn't due to GBR - and you see the data above - then, again, game over. Easy call.

I think it was a brilliant tactical protest that, though right on the edge of believability, worked perfectly. That's racing. Well-done to Nathan. And Ben just needs to nut up, quit whining, and sail better.
Complete Joke Explaination from you smack I am sorry. Nathan made no intent to round that gate.

Ben to Nathan: "SHUT UP"


 

dg_sailingfan

Super Anarchist
2,699
521
Augsburg
And still, the call and the results stand. Just facts. Nathan beat Ben.
Nathan cheated like he always does! He pulled similar moves to Tom in 2019. Cheating should not been rewarded.

You want to talk facts. Outteridge has only beaten Slingsby once at the New York SailGP in 2019 and he would not have beaten Ainslie either if it weren't for that Penalty. Ainslie is the biggest Threat so far in 2021 to Slingsby so the Umpires gave Slingsby a nice Present by relegating Ainslie to 3rd.

 

nroose

Super Anarchist
5,251
295
Berkeley
It's this thing that is happening in many sports. The rules are designed to protect the athletes, and the athletes take advantage of them by faking the fouls. It happens in soccer, basketball, sailing, etc. I guess that is the way it has to be. But it also kinda sucks. And I am not sure it doesn't make some situations more dangerous.

 
It's not cheating, nor faking. It's called match racing. Ok this was a 3 boat race but Australia has got away, leaving 2 boats to duke it out.

Taking unnecessary avoiding action and pushing the penalty button is part of the game.

This one was a bit soft, but it doesn't change the fact that it's better to protest than to risk contact to prove you were not given room.

In this case i think Japan were not sailing to the mark, so took a bit too much room, but the penalty may already have been given by then? 

 
First, what you just went through happens in probably 2 seconds within the critical window of this particular rule. So this idea of "expiration" is a little far-fetched. Here you can see that JPN has just entered the mark zone - WAY ahead of GBR even being close...

View attachment 458941

JPN's track shows they are moving toward WG1. And GBR is slowly arcing upward - but not making any significant moves to avoid.. The umps see this developing and immediately zoom into the area as you can see below...

View attachment 458942

And just now, less than 2 seconds later, JPN starts a clear dip down to avoid GBR - who is still not in the zone. Yet GBR has still not yet altered their course in any significant way and is headed right into the zone just ahead of JPN.

My hunch is that this is exactly when JPN calls the protest. They absolutely have the right to round WG1 - but clearly can't with GBR on its current course. So JPN takes evasive action to avoid a collision and calls the protest. That's the story the umps hear.

Again, this is all perfectly kosher per the rules. JPN has every right to protest this rule as GBR continues its course into the zone, crowding JPN even more - and, again, the umps are all over this with the data (not just watching it on the tele like most)...

View attachment 458943

Looking at these tracks it's clear that JPN, not GBR, took the evasive action. This is what umps see, and they make their call. And it is the right call per the rules.

Second, as to "expiration of rights", I think we would agree that those rights certainly will not have expired in the 2-3 seconds in the above 3 screenshots while JPN was still in the zone. How and at exactly what time JPN might choose to whip their boat to port for some crazy tack around WG1 is NOT the concern of - nor the business of - the umpires. Only the rule I pointed out is at play right now. And GBR clearly took away JPN's option at WG1 for the entire 2-3 seconds that opportunity to tack was available to JPN. So - easy call. Game over.

Finally, there is the issue of "intent" - like "C'mon, there is no way Nathan would have tacked around WG1 there. That would be a stupid tactical move. So it's all a BS call." None of that matters. He had the right to do it, so if he says he couldn't due to GBR - and you see the data above - then, again, game over. Easy call.

I think it was a brilliant tactical protest that, though right on the edge of believability, worked perfectly. That's racing. Well-done to Nathan. And Ben just needs to nut up, quit whining, and sail better.
At no time could Japan have turned and rounded and been impeded by GBR. This is room to round as she wishes not ROW. Japan's move to the right was to go fast to the other mark and perhaps to tease the UMP software. This is a BS call. This is an unsportsmanlike protest and is outside the fundal mental principals of the RRS.

Tink

 

smackdaddy

Super Anarchist
6,144
588
SmackDab, Middle
This is an unsportsmanlike protest and is outside the fundal mental principals of the RRS.
You're obviously free to have your opinion on the call. But you're flat wrong about the part above. The fundamental tenet within SailpGP's RRS is to avoid collision. And the reason is abundantly clear when you understand the closing speeds of these boats (hence the size of the mark zone).

The bottom line is that an umpire would have to do far more logical gymnastics to forgive GBR in this incident, than to simply call it per the rule. It was a valid protest by Nathan - and the right call by the umps - even if Nathan "teased" them. That's what great sailors do...and the very essence of intelligent sportsmanship.

 

mspork

New member
Anyone who thinks Ainslie would not have protested had the situations been reversed is seriously deluded. He is the master of pushing the letter - as he is entitled to do - and as Nathan was in this case. 

Had Nathan taken the risk and tried to round, and made any contact with GBR, they could have been subject to a points deduction. They couldn't take that risk which meant JPN had to take the unfavorable mark rounding. I don't understand these comments that JPN never intended to take WG1 - of course they wanted to round WG1! Rounding WG2 effectively put them out of the race (had it not been for the penalty).

It was a fair penalty. The only lack of sportsmanship on display was Ainslie's hissy fit and telling Nathan to "shut up".

 

shanghaisailor

Super Anarchist
3,110
1,263
Shanghai, China
Exactly Desert Wings. I rather think it is smackdaddy who is somewhat biased or lacking in understanding what Mark Room actually is. For JPN to have had a piece of GBR then JPN would have had to take more mark room than they were entitled to and therefore the penalty on GBR was wrong.

TO clarify the SailGP RRS 18 states that the inside boat be given mark room

MARK ROOM is the right to leave the mark on the required side - GBR allowed JPN to do this

MARK ROOM is room to sail to the mark. JPN sailed to the mark unimpeded, GBR was 3 boat lengths away

MARK ROOM is the room to round or pass the mark as necessary to sail the course. JPN could have tacked at the mark while GBR was 3 boat lengths away. If a boat takes more than the room they are entitled to it is penalty on them, not the other boat

MARK ROOM IS NOT a free pass to take as much room as you want and it most certainly does not allow a tactical rounding. I think JPN tried it on and caught the umpire flat footed.

By the time their course actually intersected GBR's course they would most certainly NOT have just been taking just the Mark room and as such they would be a port tack boat Vs a starboard tack boat.

In fact if you look at GBR's wake she has come up considerably to allow the mark room to JPN

At no time did GBR deny JPN "room to round the mark". It is often a good idea to read the definitions when discussing the rules because the rules hang off the definitions, not the other way round.

As nroose said a bit of faking going on. In soccer such an obvious 'dive' would get a yellow card at least.

Watch Mozzy sails video, it explains it very well.  




 

smackdaddy

Super Anarchist
6,144
588
SmackDab, Middle
That's a lot of words. But this is all you need to see the clear penalty. And this is exactly what the umpires saw - and evaluated. It was the right call per the rules. Period.

View attachment 458942

It's funny how there's so much drama over second place. Heh.

 

Desert Wings

New member
Agreed,  good video.  My point isn't about Ben vs Nathan, it's that the rule needs an official interpretation to provide clarity for all.

The comments from smackdaddy regarding speeds are fallacious, as Nathan executes a tack after rounding from a reach (30 knots approx) during race 1, remaining inside the 45m circle for the whole manoeuvre....so not challenging from upwind on a lighter day.

Screenshot 2021-08-24 175152.png

 

martin 'hoff

Super Anarchist
2,168
1,044
Miami
Mozzy's analysis is excellent.

I don't particularly mind Nathan inflicting pain on Ben (ask Robert Scheidt!), and umpires sometimes mess it up. But the penalty system gets in the way here, and gives too much power to the infringed boat.

The 'get behind boat X' penalty is appropriate for some fast paced situations, but it's downright awful in others. Replace it with "get behind X OR do a 360, your choice".

This would have allowed GBR to take the penalty, not be bound to JPN's bad rounding, and go chase AUS. 

 

smackdaddy

Super Anarchist
6,144
588
SmackDab, Middle
This would have allowed GBR to take the penalty, not be bound to JPN's bad rounding, and go chase AUS. 
Beyond whatever one thinks about the call itself, this is the rub in terms of the consequences of the penalty. In other words, IF JPN is pushed into a wind-hole by the infringing GBR (which could be argued in this case) - then your described solution isn't fair. JPN drops into the hole through no fault of its own while GBR gets the good pressure - does the loop - and sails up the podium while JPN is dead in the water. Nope.

I don't know what the perfect answer is. But I think the existing "relative-to" approach makes a lot of sense. It simply murdered GBR in this particular situation the way it played out. But if the penalty call is valid, they deserved it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mizzmo

Anarchist
697
119
Monterey, CA
Also GBR sailed an excessively long time to clear the penalty. If they had sailed back to JPN early on they would have had more time to come back.

I think the Umpire just made a mistake, and I'm ok with that, it happens in every sport. 

 

shanghaisailor

Super Anarchist
3,110
1,263
Shanghai, China
Beyond whatever one thinks about the call itself, this is the rub in terms of the consequences of the penalty. In other words, IF JPN is pushed into a wind-hole by the infringing GBR (which could be argued in this case) - then your described solution isn't fair. JPN drops into the hole through no fault of its own while GBR gets the good pressure - does the loop - and sails up the podium while JPN is dead in the water. Nope.

I don't know what the perfect answer is. But I think the existing "relative-to" approach makes a lot of sense. It simply murdered GBR in this particular situation the way it played out. But if the penalty call is valid, they deserved it.
You are right, the perfect answer probably doesn't exist as mother nature is involved.

In this case it doesn't help (as Mozzy correctly pointed out) that the umpires didn't 'flag' for 17 seconds after the non-incident.

That said what the umpires saw only compounds the error. They have mis-interpreted Mark Room.  AN F50 catamaran does not need to go to the edge of the zone (where GBR's projected course is) to round the mark. Under the definition they are only allowed sufficient room to round the mark which in this instance was to tack at the mark. They chose not to, even though they had ample room.

The diagram even shows GBR coming up (their course is curved) ro ensure JPN had Mark Room to tack at the mark as they were entitled to.

Of course it would have involved a tack and likely falling off the foils but Mark Room makes no mention of allowing room for a tactical rounding, just a rounding. They took that risk by coming into a mark in light air where they would have to tack if they wanted that mark and GBR paid the price of a wrong call (in my opinon)

Mark Room  doe not allow allow a boat to sail their proper course to the mark, only to "sail to the mark when their proper course is to round the mark" Subtle but meaningful difference. 

It is perhaps worth having a look at the following cases RYA 25; 70; 114 & 118 as they all touch on Mark Room entitlement.

The whole thing shows that no one is perfect and as I have said elsewhere, the umpires have to make a decision VERY quickly (my mentor always told/tells me you have 3-5 seconds) and they don't have the benefit of video replays or discussion forums. This decision took rather longer and that compounded the situation.

Just sayin'. As usual if I am wrong, i will eat humble pie.

See ya on the water

SS

 

Latest posts




Top