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  <1 3456>
Author
Kiwi Spy View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 23 Feb 05
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Post Options Post Options   Quote Kiwi Spy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 05 at 2:53am

Think it was a Worlds but not sure - someone else mentioned on the other thread that Percy had been sailed out of second when Loof took him further back than required to improve his own score.  There was no allegation of team-racing but the reading of case 78 above implies that there might have been a case to answer nevertheless!

I looked at both the Olympics and 2005 Worlds - there was no mention of it in the Y&Y report on the Olympics - which included an interview with Percy, where he blames his performance in the last race on poor cimmunication between him and his crew. He won the last two races in the Star worlds - so can't really blame another boat for that!

My point is that only A actually knows whether it is intended to improve A's score - or someone elses, when circumstances are as they are in the Barker case.  So if this IJ decision was taken as case law we would have a game change if A's actions could also improve C's positions.  Effectively the tactic would be v high risk if more than one boat's position could be improved and especially if any connection between A and C could be construed or implied, whether supported by evidence of dinners to discuss tactics or not.

While Case 78 does talk about "intent" ("provided that this tactic is intended to benefit her own series result") it follows that this "intention" must have some rational basis, and that once there is  no rational basis for continuing the  tactic (ie that  the boats have reached such a position in the race that A's series result cannot be benefited) then  A becomes increasingly at risk of a protest from  B  - and then it becomes a  matter for the Jury or Protest Committee to decide. If this were not the case, then A could come into the protest room with any old story about her tactics, saying this was her intent and the PC/Jury have to accept this because it was her intent, and that is all that is required. However if this is the case then ISAF should be amending the rules and cases so that it is clear that it is permissible to take out a boat within a fleet race, and leave everyone to do what they will. Imagine the outcry in the last race of the Olympics when a boat with a good shot at a gold medal got sailed off the course by some back marker, just for the hell of it. If you think this is OK then you need to look at Case 34 (the old Silvestri case) where it says in the summary that "hindering another boat may be a breach of RRS2".

Also interesting - surely A should have the right to put some extra places in the bag?  Especially as nothing is ever certain on a last beat.

But we are in agreement here - the current case law is fine.  What we may or may not disagree over is the use it has been put to by this IJ who effectively made a decision based on circumstantial evidence and a subjective assessmant of the situation made with hindsight to say that Barker and Co, the boat A in this situation, were not attempting to improve their own position , and were not in a position to do so.

Unfortunately PC's and Juries sometimes have to make decisions based on wildly differing evidence. All they can do in this situation is deduce the facts on the balance of probabilities and then make a decison based on the application of the rules to that situation - which maybe to dismiss or disqualify.

If one party thinks the Jury has got wrong - even an International "no appeals" Jury they have the right within a certain time-frame to request a re-opening. So there is some protection against a "wrong decision".  I think you'll find that in instances where the Jury has made a mistake, they will be only too ready to amend their original decision and correct the situation, if that is the appropriate action, and there is new evidence.

I also find it interesting because I have been in the boat A situation with a great deal to achieve in a sailback situation if I wanted to take second in a Nats.  I gave it my best shot and failed by 3 places - had another boat benefitted from my actions I could presumably have been protested if this IJ's decision is used as a guide.  But had I been successful I would by performance have proved my case.  That is no way for the case law to lead us.

It would depend on when you started your tactics and other factors, but when you start the sail-back, you are always at risk of a protest if you get beyond the point of no return - when your tactic was clearly futile but you continued and disadvantaged the other boat in terms of  its series score.

We have all seen match races for fleet championships - but these normally start at the beginning of the race, between the top two boats, which will generally be close to the back of the fleet at the first mark and then start racing through to catch up as many boats as possible and at the same time get as many boats as possible between them and their opponent.

 

KS



Edited by Kiwi Spy
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: 28 Feb 05 at 1:58pm

It was me who posted about Percy.

It was the Star worlds in 2003 - Loof nailed Percy who was pretty unhappy at the situation as Loof "overdid it" but he took it on the chin.

Loof only needed to sail Percy to 8th but in the end they finished 27th & 28th which was pretty hard as it let through another boat into silver.

Here is a quote;

“We are a bit disappointed as we didn’t think Freddie [Loof] needed to do as much damage as he did, we both went from first and second to 31st and 32nd.

See

http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/default2.asp?section=11& ;article=12826

Seems to me the situation is very similar.

Rick

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: 28 Feb 05 at 9:31pm
Originally posted by Guest#260

Seems to me the situation is very similar.

Sorry Rick but I have to disagree. This situation is clearly a one on one, more of a match race. This is acceptable to most sailors

The incident at the I14 Worlds is more about team racing in a fleet race which is not acceptable.

Bonnie Lass Contender 1764
Back to Top
Kiwi Spy View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 23 Feb 05
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Post Options Post Options   Quote Kiwi Spy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 05 at 9:37pm
There are some similarities in the two boats relative points scores (2004 Star Worlds vs 2005 I-14 Worlds). Loof had a low discard before the final race, Percy had a high discard.

But there are some significant differences in that all Loof had to do was sail him down to 8th or worse to win. In the 1-14's  it was more severe  - at least 27th  to 34th. Loof started on the first leg, the I-14's didn't start until half way up the last. Loof actually got Percy back to 50th and when they broke off thjen the rapid recovery started. Between both boats (Stars and I-14's)  there was only one place difference at the finish which says that if you are going to do the sail down then it is not that realistic to say that you are going to get XX down to 35th place and then finish 15th yourself. In both cases, the reality is that once the tactic is ceased then both boats will recover very rapidly and you can't really get any meat into the sandwich to built the points differential you require. Your best hope is to sail a competitor down to a place worse than his discard and hold him there, taking your foot off his throat and saying that "I'll leave him where he is and jump 10 places myself" seems to be rather fanciful.

Percy could have protested, but didn't. Loof was in second place before the final race and won the gold medal - arguably through this tactic. Certainly his intent was clear and achievable and successful.

There was also a similar situation at the 2002 Int Contender Worlds in Melbourne when Brett (AUS) was in third place overall behind Bonezzi (ITA) going into the last race. The two match raced from the outset, were dead last and second to last around the first mark and then recovered to finish 39th and 36th respectively.  (Again there was no meat in the sandwich once the tactic ceased), however it was successful from Bretts viewpoint in that he won the worlds and Bonezzi finished 3rd. Looking at the similarities again Bonezzi had a 10th as a worst place at Race 6, Brett had a 3rd. So Brett could finish anywhere in the fleet but had to get Bonezzi past 10th - which in a 64 boat fleet and attacking from the start was not that big an ask.

KS


Edited by Kiwi Spy
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: 28 Feb 05 at 10:53pm

Kiwi Spy I have to disagree having been both boat A and boat B in this situation - it is not at all easy to get back!

But in both the Loof and I14 situation both boats were racing against a discard - not looking to achieve a result.

I do not believe Percy could have protested - Loof had proved by performance as you point out,that he was benefitting himself.  There was no allegation of team-racing - so no breach of RRS2 so no chance of redress.

Turn that onit's head and say the right was favoured in the I14 case - they finish say 21st.  Are they team racing?  The IJs logic is weak because they ignore the what if factor, and the fact that the Aussies were in 18th at the leeward mark.

Will be interesting to see how this develops.  I hope we haven't heard the last of it.

Back to Top
Kiwi Spy View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 23 Feb 05
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Post Options Post Options   Quote Kiwi Spy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 05 at 11:33pm
The point aboit Percy protesting is that he can lodge a protest - the IJ may not uphold it. However I am assuming that he did not protest and therefore accepted the situation as being within the rules. If you apply the tests extrapolated from the ISAF Cases, then Loof did improve his series score, and this was his intention.

This is not about team racing, it is about the rights (and curtailment of rights) of a boat to continue to hinder another boat who she has no actual or realistic chance of  beating on series points.

There are two situations, if the hindering boat breaks a rule of Part 2 (and maybe damages the other boat) - then it is clear that the other boat is entitled to redress. However if the hindering boat keeps clear but continues to hinder the other boat, beyond the point where her series score is not or cannot be improved, the Case 78 comes into play as does 34. The hindered boat may protest, the IJ/PC may uphold that protest or may dismiss. If the protest is upheld the hindered boat may be entitled to redress, which the IJ/PC may award, or may decide that there were other factors involved in her placing and leave the scores to stand, or grant an amount of redress which does not have the effect of altering the hindered boats placing in the regatta, but which may improve her score.

Look at another situation - in an Olympic qualifier. Boat A has qualified, her rival B has not yet qualified and has to finish in say the top ten of the final race to do so. Is A entitled to sail B off he course using tactics that will not improve A's series score, but will be highly detrimental to B, and under her countries grant system will mean that she will not get funding that year, and is effectively out of the Olympics and this is to A's advantage as B is expected to be close rival of A's in the Olympic regatta proper. My interpretaion of the ISAF Cases and RRS is that B is entitled to some protection against this form of tactic, is entitled to protest and if the IJ agreed with her could be entitled to redress.

KS
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: 01 Mar 05 at 8:14am

Originally posted by Kiwi Spy


This is not about team racing, it is about the rights (and curtailment of rights) of a boat to continue to hinder another boat who she has no actual or realistic chance of  beating on series points.

Yes and why might you want to sail down a boat you cannot beat? Answer: team racing.

Back to Top
Kiwi Spy View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 23 Feb 05
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Post Options Post Options   Quote Kiwi Spy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 05 at 9:35am
Originally posted by Stefan Lloyd

Yes and why might you want to sail down a boat you cannot beat? Answer: team racing.

I can assure you that there are heaps of reasons why a boat might try and sail another down the fleet other than "Teams Racing" - which is really "Works Teams Racing" and which doesn't really exist outside of UK.

Most of the time it is the reverse situation where two competitors will fight each other hammer and tong in some regatta because unknown to the rest of the fleet it is an Olympic selection regatta for that country.

KS

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: 01 Mar 05 at 12:51pm

If boat A nails boat B then almost certainly some 3rd party (C) will benefit.

This is what happened to Percy and the Aussies.

The question is when does the actions of A to B constitute team racing in favour of C.

If A can argue that their actions were to their own benefit then all is OK.

Seems to me in this case as A failed to achieve their own objectives so the IJ assumed then their actions were for the benefit of C. This was based on the outcome and not on what could have been considered a resonable tactic at the time. Also they threw in some rubbish about dinners and team orders to really dirty the names of those involved.

Had the right paid and the Aussies finished >26th Then they would have justified their actions and the results been very different.

I don't like the fact that the IJ used the outcome to build their position rather than assessing the actions based on the positions at the time the covering started.

Rick

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: 01 Mar 05 at 12:59pm

Originally posted by Kiwi Spy

I can assure you that there are heaps of reasons why a boat might try and sail another down the fleet other than "Teams Racing" - which is really "Works Teams Racing" and which doesn't really exist outside of UK.

Granted, but the allegation in the case we are talking about was "Works Teams Racing" and the IJ concluded (rightly or not) that it happened. Originally both GBR boats were protested. I am therefore puzzled why you are saying this case is not about team racing.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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