New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: International 14 Worlds
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

International 14 Worlds

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>
Author
Scooby_simon View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2413
Post Options Post Options   Quote Scooby_simon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Feb 05 at 8:01pm

So if only one discard, could it be seen that GBR1516 could have gone up the leader board if they had forced AUS631 bleow 28th ?

I have a feeling this one will run and run till we can get some first hand accounts......

F16 GBR 553 - Hungry Monster - For sale
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
I also talk sport here
Back to Top
Blobby View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 04
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 779
Post Options Post Options   Quote Blobby Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 12:14am

In which case are you saying they are guilty of nothing but failing to sail the aussies far enough down the fleet to be of benefit to themselves??

Either way it appears clear that they tried to operate as a team and the rules have been successfully applied to demonstrate that this behaviour is unacceptable.  End of Story.

Back to Top
Stefan Lloyd View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 03 Aug 04
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1599
Post Options Post Options   Quote Stefan Lloyd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 8:29am

There is an interesting story on this on The Daily Sail with long quotes from both Barker and Bell, the chairman of the jury. Since it is a subscription site, I suppose I had better not quote verbatim. 

Bell says Barker needed to push Irwin/Perry down to 26th to benefit and would have needed to slow them by 8 minutes to do so. Their tactics slowed them by 3 minutes and there was no chance they could have slowed them by 8. Therefore it was team racing.

Barker says they pushed Irwin/Perry to the left hand of the course, which along with most of the fleet they expected to be non-favoured. As it turned out, it was the way to go. If the shift had not favoured the left hand side, they say they might have got them to 26th and gained 2nd place in the series for themselves.

I think Barker makes a more plausible case that is was not team racing than the protest report gives them credit for. However if team racing tactics became common in fleet racing, it would ruin the sport. Therefore I think that given that GBR1516's tactics were, at best, open to question, the jury did the right thing.

 

Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 21 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Post Options Post Options   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 11:09am

There are two threads running on this see the other ...

http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4 66&PN=1

Perhaps we could get these threads merged ... moderator please ...

Back to Top
JimC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 17 May 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5419
Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 12:45pm
Originally posted by Ralph T

Anyone know what rule the Protest Committee used to give redress to the Ausies against Alistair & Ian?



There was a rule 2 protest found against the covering boat. Rule 62.1 reads in part:-

62.1 A request for redress or a protest committee’s decision to consider redress shall be based on a claim or possibility that a boat’s score in a race or series has, through no fault of her own, been made significantly worse by [snip]
(d) a boat against which a penalty has been imposed under rule 2[snip]

Given the rule 2 finding the redress follows uncontroversially.
Back to Top
Scooby_simon View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2413
Post Options Post Options   Quote Scooby_simon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 1:25pm

Bell says Barker needed to push Irwin/Perry down to 26th to benefit and would have needed to slow them by 8 minutes to do so. Their tactics slowed them by 3 minutes and there was no chance they could have slowed them by 8. Therefore it was team racing.

But by placing the (initial) claose cover they would be pressing for a mistake from Irwin/Perry, one capsize could have lost the extra 5 minutes. 

If they were tring to push them down the fleet FOR THEIR OWN ends, they sohuld have kept the vover on the whole way up the beat.  Thus making they (supposed) intions clear.  By breaking off once the other boat was ina  position to wind was at best silly, and at worst identified what thery were really trying to do.

I would actually like to keep these two threads seperate as (I hope) we are talking about the rules here, the other thread is starting to talk about the people and what happened. 

 

 

 

F16 GBR 553 - Hungry Monster - For sale
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
I also talk sport here
Back to Top
sargethesailor View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 21 Feb 05
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12
Post Options Post Options   Quote sargethesailor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 6:33pm

Copy of my post on the other thread.  I think the Rule 2 bit is highly significant - more on the facts found when I reaccess them.

Is it? They are a protest committee, not a court of law. Protest decisions are made on the balance of probabilities all the time. "Reasonable doubt" is a defence in law but not in front of a protest committee. It is only a sailboat race albeit, in this case, quite an important one. 

[/QUOTE]

However Rule 2 binds the PC/IJ somewhat more than the normal standard of proof with the phrase "A boat may only be penalized under this rule if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated".  When I read the facts found I see some fairly hefty jumps of logic, which have been previously discussed.  They do not,to me, add up to "clearly established".

I would suggest that there was an imperative to give redress in the interests of a "fair" result.  As already commented PCs/IJs write facts found to support their conclusions.  To do so required a Rule 2 DNE. 

One can not know the reaction of Steve Morrison at this remove, but in all honesty the result is probably fair - from what I read it seems the Aussies would have closed the gap enough to win.  If Ian Barker and Co genuinely did not team race then they can feel extremely aggrieved at what is a signifcant slur.  If they did then fair enough - but my own feeling is that the IJ's facts found don't sufficiently support their conclusion in the context of standards of proof for Rule 2, and the other issues which go with that for the protestee.

Back to Top
Chris 249 View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 04
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1822
Post Options Post Options   Quote Chris 249 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 05 at 9:51pm
Re "They are a protest committee, not a court of law. Protest decisions are made on the balance of probabilities all the time. "Reasonable doubt" is a defence in law but not in front of a protest committee."

Umm, actually "reasonable doubt" is NOT a concept that is used in civil legal actions, which this is comparable to. The requirement to prove beyond reasonable doubt is for criminal matters.

The balance of probabilities is the test for all civil matters (with one or two minute exceptions where onus has been switched by legislation). So many, many cases, including contract cases and anti-competitive cases involving vast sums (like the Microsoft cases AFAIK), are decided on the balance of probabilities. Inferring motives from the evidence is  frequently a vital part of these cases. It's very well trodden ground.

Stefan says that the DS article makes Barker's case sound more reasonable than the jury's decision does (although there seem to be some major leaps of logic in Barker's case IMHO). Surely that's not surprising, nor should it be used as evidence that the jury may have been wrong - Barker is an interested party therefore he is (consciously or sub-consciously) trying to present his case in the best possible light.  The head of the jury is trying to sound neutral.

So we've heard from one side and we've heard from the umpire; we have not heard Irwin and Perry's side of the matter. No wonder such one-sided info sounds convincing!

However, the jury got to hear BOTH sides, and from a RC member and from a Brit coach, and they did not believe Barker. They are in a better position than we are in to judge the matter.

Scooby, for the past 50 years you've been able to get a 14 up in a minute or less. Hell, even an 18 can come up in a minute or less.


Edited by Chris 249
Back to Top
Stefan Lloyd View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 03 Aug 04
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1599
Post Options Post Options   Quote Stefan Lloyd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 05 at 9:45am

Originally posted by Chris 249

   The head of the jury is trying to sound neutral.

Depends on what you mean by neutral. The IJ has made a controversial decision and Bell (chair) now has to stand by and justify that decision. Therefore the evidence he brings forward is the evidence that supports him. The protest document contains very little of what Barker said on the TheDailySail to justify himself. Maybe he didn't say those things during the protest - we don't know.

Thinking about this decision some more, what makes it really unusual as a protest case is that it is all about GBR1516's motivation rather than their behaviour. Normally a protest case is about....this was the geometry of the boats on the water (facts found) and here are the rules that apply. This case is about GBR1516's motivation. They could do exactly the same thing, and depending on why they did it, rule 2 was or was not broken. I don't think protest committees or IJs were really designed to make that kind of decision.

I think the balance of probabilities is that GBR1516 were team racing but I don't see the evidence as conclusive. Barker makes case that had the wind not shifted to favour the left, he may have been able to drive the AUS boat down to 28th. Can the IJ really be sure that he couldn't have. A very good point has been made on the other thread that the evidence standards for a rule 2 violation are higher than for other rules.  "A boat may only be penalized under this rule if it is clearly established (my italics) that these principles have been violated". 

So did the IJ clearly establish that if the wind had not shifted to favour the left, GBR1516 would still have had no chance to drive the AUS boat down to 28th. I'm not certain they did. The protest findings don't really address the question: they look at the finishing timings with the wind shift as it happened. Almost nobody expected the shift. The fleet went right and GBR1516 drove the AUS boat left precisely because it was expected not to be favoured.

The IJ had a very difficult case and I don't envy them. But the more I think about it, the less convinced I am they made the right decision. If the bigger picture, though, is the need to ensure that team tactics stay out of fleet racing, maybe they did the right thing. Tough for the two GBR boats though.

 

 

Back to Top
Chris 249 View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 04
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1822
Post Options Post Options   Quote Chris 249 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 05 at 1:59pm
Stefan, I meant Bell was trying not to sound biased; of course you are right, he was also defending the decision in the course of explaining it. You are also right on the requirements for something to be "clearly established", but as you imply, the jury felt it was established and as you said, they seem to have made the right decision.

As you said "The protest document contains very little of what Barker said on the TheDailySail to justify himself", but the document also contains very little of what 631 said, AND 631 didn't get quoted on the Daily Sail. That 631 were not (apparently) interviewed by DS is itself not great journalism in a controversial case (unless they declined to comment which is normally noted).

Some people have said that 1516 drove 631 out to the side that turned out to  be favoured, but the PC ruling said ""On the final leg of race 7 AUS 631 went to the port side of the course." BEFORE 1516 turned back, and I think the DS report said so too.It's only a minor point, but 1516 didn't drive 631 out to the side of the course that turned out to be favoured....631 had already gone out there (possibly knowing the tide was turning, as it was in fact) that underlines that without the hindrance, 631 would almost certainly have made up to few places they needed. Some people have said or implied that it was only 1516's interference that piushed 631 out to the correct side.

I've done a bit of teams racing fairly succesfully and including sailing against the team that was 3rd in the team racing worlds. AFAIK it would be hard to drive  someone back through the fleet to boats that are 8 m behind, and most sailors would have looked back to see how far the high 20s...about a mile or so in this case.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz