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  <12345 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: 22 Feb 05 at 2:09pm

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.

Yup, but if you are trying to forve them down the fleet.  I minute to get the boat back up.  how long to sort out and then start sailing again.  All with another boat waiting for you to get sorted out so they can continue the fight...

F16 GBR 553 - Hungry Monster - For sale
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
I also talk sport here
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 2:49pm

Originally posted by Chris 249

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.

In the DS report Barker does say they deliberately drove AUS 631 left. Unfortunately I don't think I ought to quote verbatim here from a subscription site. I agree the DS report isn't particularly satisfactory but it is the only place I've seen when Barker gets his say. 

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: 22 Feb 05 at 3:30pm
I have now read the DS report and (not wishing to quote) but Barker says that the boat in front was 100m away and so they felt they would not catch them (and so improve their placing in that way), so the only option was to go and attack the boat behind to improve their position.
 
Now just consider this :
 
Last race.
 
1, One boat in front of you who you have to catch and pass to improve your chances in a regatta. 
2, One boat behind you that if you push back even more can improve your position
 
Which boat do you attack ?
 
1, you have to catch, do you have a boat speed advantage ? (probaly not), have you tactical options (limited, last beat and about 100m in front, enough distance ahead for a close cover from above to make it difficult to catch up)
 
2, Boat behind you can go back to and guarantee you can do something. 
 
 
I would take option 2.
 
(Bell chair of the PC) says that if they had started their actions ealier the (PC) may have made a different judgment, however, it is also stated that GBR had to decide if they could catch the boat in front or not, they decided sometime up the last beat that they would not catch the boat infront and so went back to attack AUS.  It sounds to me like the IJ/PC ended up using a bit of 20/20 hindsite. 
 
Also, others have made comments about the facts found being more about the state of mind / perceptions of actions.  IMO this is an invalid statement within the facts found, this is an opinion.  Fact found should only contain facts. 
 
going back to my comments above re slowing them down.
 
I think somewere above says that there was approx 9 minutes of the race left to run.  The AUS boat was slowed by 3 minutes in 9.   Add a capsize or 2, a collision/foul and a couple of turns and surely you can find another 5 minutes.  How long did Ben slow Robert at the olly's trying to do ONE tack.....
 
Now people may think I am taking the GBR side, but I am not, I find this part of sailing very interesting as we do so little of it sailing cats.
 
The more I read about this the more I think Barker has been badly done by.
 
F16 GBR 553 - Hungry Monster - For sale
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
I also talk sport here
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: 1821
Post Options Post Options   Quote Chris 249 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Feb 05 at 12:44pm
"I have now read the DS report and (not wishing to quote) but Barker says that the boat in front was 100m away and so they felt they would not catch them (and so improve their placing in that way), so the only option was to go and attack the boat behind to improve their position."

But is that right? I thought that even after slowing down Irwin etc, they still ended up gaining on the fleet. So they had other options to perform well.
 
Re "Now just consider this :
Last race.
1, One boat in front of you who you have to catch and pass to improve your chances in a regatta. 
2, One boat behind you that if you push back even more can improve your position
Which boat do you attack ?
1, you have to catch, do you have a boat speed advantage ? (probaly not), have you tactical options (limited, last beat and about 100m in front, enough distance ahead for a close cover from above to make it difficult to catch up)"

For a start, Simon, your facts are wrong. According to DS and the jury Barker did NOT have to catch one boat...he merely had to stop it improving from 12th to 9th.

So he had options. You can go left (tide is changing and will help that side), get past them and slam on them; that puts them one boat further back for a start even before you drive them back.

If they don't cover you to the left, you may well pass them (perhaps they may have done so here if they hadn''t spent their time slowing Irwin). If they DO cover you, great. Time your tacks so that if they cover you, they  have to tack in someone else's bad wind. Time your tacks so that they have to tack when they are in lulls. Remember their skipper has already been in hospital this regatta and if you tack and tack and tack, you may exhaust him. Because you are not trying to get past....you're just trying to slow him down so he does not gain 3 places.

And are you saying that you CANNOT get past a boat 100 yards ahead? Of course you can, it's done all the time in match racing and that's when the boat ahead has fewer obstacles. I know Laser champs who have lost races when the guy 100m  behind (who went on to win the Soling match racing worlds) got them to tack at the wrong time when they close covered. Hell, I think the technique is  detailed in Elvstrom, and Connor. There are plenty of examples of boats 100 yards ahead being caught up the last beat - much less people who have helped reduce the chances of a boat gaining 3 places.
 
Re "2, Boat behind you can go back to and guarantee you can do something."

Something, yes...guarantees no, sometimes a good sailor in fast boats can sneak out of cover quickly. And if they don;t get out, can you sail them back 8m or so, so boats about a mile back up the course catch up in 9m of sailing? Can you tell me of another time when a boat has slowed another down to that extent? I've suffered the attentions of the world's 3rd best match racing team almost all to myself (I was the only reasonable boat in a scratch team) and they did not slow me down that much, and I'm nowhere near as good as Irwin and Perry.

"T
hey decided sometime up the last beat that they would not catch the boat infront and so went back to attack AUS.  It sounds to me like the IJ/PC ended up using a bit of 20/20 hindsite."

Soooo...what you're saying is that the Poms did NOT decide up the last beat that they could not catch the boat in front, so they went back. But isn't that exactly what Barker said they actually did do, in the Daily Sail?

In the DS interview, Barker AGREES that "s
ometime up the last beat that they would not catch the boat infront and so went back to attack AUS. ". That's what HE said he did.....but when the jury say the same thing, you say they are using hindsight. Is that logical?

Have you seen the transcripts from the protest? How do you know that Barker didn't tell the committee that's what happened? He told Daily Sail that's what happened!

" IMO this is an invalid statement within the facts found, this is an opinion.  Fact found should only contain facts. "

Well, in that case  tell ISAF, the juries, the rulemakers, everyone else that they are wrong. And don't protest anyone on port/starboard. The state of mind of the port tacker is, under the current rules, a vital matter in such cases. Don't try to protest the guy who rams someone at full speed before the prep gun and sinks them when all the sunken boat needed was to finish....maybe the sinkee really did just make a mistake. ...Don't disqualify the Formula 40 skipper (Grundfos Pumps was the boat IIRC) who rammed a competitor and then hopped into his rubber ducky and used it to ram the competitor after the race....hey, maybe he was going over to congratulate them in the first instance and going over to apologise in the second, and he got it wrong both times. It sounds highly unlikely, but if you cannot look at his state of mind then you shouldn't penalise him.

Even in murder trials (as in basically all criminal matters) state of mind is vital.

Re "I think somewere above says that there was approx 9 minutes of the race left to run.  The AUS boat was slowed by 3 minutes in 9.   Add a capsize or 2, a collision/foul and a couple of turns and surely you can find another 5 minutes.  How long did Ben slow Robert at the olly's trying to do ONE tack....."

I was watching Ben and Robert, live. I've raced against them and been coverd by Blackburn who was 3rd in that event so is no slouch....Ben didn't slow Robert down anywhere NEAR 9 minutes IIRC and it was over much, much more than one tack. He took the entire beat. It was great sailing, no-one ever hassled Ben, none of us watching (I was in a group including a 2 time Olympian and the dad of another competitor) ever had anything bad to say about Ben - because it was obvious that he was only doing what he did to help HIMSELF.

What you say about capsizing does not sound correct to me, there is very little clearing up and recovery to be done in such a situation. And how stooppid do you think these world-class 14ers are? They are not going to capsize one or two times and foul someone in such a situation. And as far as "cleaning up"...see this description from the 14's history....
During the Trials to determine the best combination of buoyancy and automatic bailing, Golden Spray (658) was fitted with two experimental transom scuppers of about 7sq.in. With full permitted buoyancy and two suction bailers, the boat could be capsized, pulled upright, and planing again in a little over a minute the Committee of that time thought this was a little bit too swift, but today 14's are completely self draining, draining while planing has reached its logical conclusion.

That was capsizing and "planing again in a little over a minute" and it was in 1955. Look at the 14s and see how much they've improved and changed in that 50 years, and then try to say it would normally take twice as long to recover.

Maybe we should just change the rules....to something like this.

1) Follow the rules and abide by the jury decision and show good sportsmanship in doing so.

2) If the jury disqualifies a British boat, rule 1 does not apply.

Hell, the bias in this matter is obvious; not in NZ, but in Y & Y where the creator of the first thread called the result a 'stitch up" before many facts were
in. The absence of many facts didn't prevent minds being made up.

The reaction to the jury's decision is about as unsporting as.......as Shane Warne's antics, and you can't get much lower than that.

Stefan, re "In the DS report Barker does say they deliberately drove AUS 631 left."

OK, on the one hand we have a competitor, on the other hand a jury. Why is a competitor's explanation of why he should not have been disqualified thought to be more trustworthy than the jury's report??

" I agree the DS report isn't particularly satisfactory but it is the only place I've seen when Barker gets his say."

Barker got his say in the protest room. So did any witnesses he wanted, and other witnesses. The jury found against him.

Irwin and Perry have had NO place to be seen to have their say, outside of the protest room.

How can you balance Barker's case against Irwins, when you have not heard Irwin's??

We've only heard a one-sided story from Barker - why should it get more credence than the decision of those who have heard both sides (the jury)? Why should it get more credence than the (so far untold) story of Irwin?

One story has been found believable, the other has not. Why not go with the one that has been believed by an impartial body?








Edited by Chris 249
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: 23 Feb 05 at 1:20pm

I was trying not to get personal.  I belive there may have been foul play.  I wanted to discuss the rules.  You are having a go at me for exploring what had happend and why it may have happened.  I have not posted on the other thread becasue I want to talk about the rules.  Most of what you say above has already been discussed before. 

When I was talking about the time, I was hoping to indicate that it may have been possible to delay AUS by enough time.  THe fact that the wind shifted and so improved their positions was mentionned, this may have influenced people (hence my comments about 20/20 hindsite).

All I was trying to say is that it could be possible that Barker was not team racing.  I did not say I disagreed with the decision, I did not say AUS should not have won. 

So are you suggesting that all competitors in a regatta MUST eat alone, not talk to anyone else, or share sponsors for the whole championship so thay cannot be accused of cheating - I hope not.

I want to talk about the rules.

Returning to the rules.

Do people think (as the chair of the PC said) that if barker had attacked at the last mark or even ealier the decision would have been different ?

 

 

F16 GBR 553 - Hungry Monster - For sale
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
I also talk sport here
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: 23 Feb 05 at 1:24pm
Originally posted by Chris 249

Have you seen the transcripts from the protest? How do you know that Barker didn't tell the committee that's what happened? He told Daily Sail that's what happened!
 
If Barker had anything to say in his defence, it is missing from the IJ's report. None of us were in the protest room but the IJ's report appears to me to show only the evidence the IJ believed backed up the conclusion they came to. Their findings might have been less open to question had they dealt with Barker's defence as stated to the DS. Possibly he didn't make that defence in the protest but for such an experienced competitor, that seem unlikely.
 
I think reading both threads here, your attempt to tar those questioning the IJ's decision as motivated by nationalistic considerations is misplaced. There seems to me to have been almost no playing of the jingoistic card. Speaking personally, I couldn't care less what nationality the sailors or the jurors have. I'm interested in the decision and the process, that is all.
 
Courts run by professional judges frequently make mistakes. The idea that because an IJ comes to a decision, that makes it unquestionably correct, seems more than a little naive to me. I wouldn't want a witch hunt against the IJ and there hasn't been one here, but scrutiny of their decision seems entirely fair. Generally, the members of an IJ have their expenses paid (at least) to spend a regatta in some pleasant spot, with nothing to do most of the day. When I helped run a class association we were asked to pay for an IJ for a championship and I have some idea of the financial arrangements. It is not a bad life being an IJ juror (and good luck to them - they have put in plenty of unpaid hours in the past to get there). However they are not simply volunteers and there is no reason why their decisions should not be subject to polite questioning.
 
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: 23 Feb 05 at 3:10pm

I think reading both threads here, your attempt to tar those questioning the IJ's decision as motivated by nationalistic considerations is misplaced. There seems to me to have been almost no playing of the jingoistic card. Speaking personally, I couldn't care less what nationality the sailors or the jurors have. I'm interested in the decision and the process, that is all.

This is what I was trying to say.  Stefan has put it much better.

 

F16 GBR 553 - Hungry Monster - For sale
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
I also talk sport here
Back to Top
Contender443 View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 01 Oct 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1205
Post Options Post Options   Quote Contender443 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Feb 05 at 4:31pm
I see Paul Brotherton has joined this forum - any comments on this Paul as you were one of the witnesses to this?

Edited by Contender443
Bonnie Lass Contender 1764
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: 24 Feb 05 at 6:32pm
Originally posted by Chris 249

Hell, the bias in this matter is obvious; not in NZ, but in Y & Y where the creator of the first thread called the result a 'stitch up" before many facts were in. The absence of many facts didn't prevent minds being made up.

 
I started this thread to create debate, my first posting dosn't say who I think was stiched up, it could have been the Aus boat. I was looking to start debate and it seems to have worked!!!
 
I had read both the protest docs on the NZ site and the statement by Barker - I am aware of no new media reports since that point so I was as fully informed as I could have been. But hey I wasn't sailing so what do I know. As I said - the only ones who will ever know the truth is Barker and Richardson.
 
That said I think the calling into the mix facts like sponsorship deals and dinners is not relevant to the issue unless you think it's pre-arranged tactics in which case it should have been a rule 69 job.
 
Either the IJ thought they were cheating or not, if the answer was yes then they should have thrown the book at them.
 
Seems the IJ gave the event to the Aus boat as that looked the "fairest" result with least agro - then bottled it.
 
If they thought this was team orders/collusion what ever you want to call it then they should have seen the whole thing through.
 
That said I think they got it wrong and that Morrison was robbed.
 
What about when Percy lost Silver at the Star worlds because he was sailed down by Loof - Loof really nailed him more than necessary to win the worlds so was Loof team racing in favour of the eventual silver winner (Rohart I think)?
 
This decision has big issues as I assume IJ calls establish cases.
 
regards,
 
Rick
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: 24 Feb 05 at 8:35pm

This decision has big issues as I assume IJ calls establish cases.

Yup, that is why I am interested in this debate.

F16 GBR 553 - Hungry Monster - For sale
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
I also talk sport here
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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