29er GBR 074 Tynemouth |
Laurent Giles 'Jolly Boat' Exeter |
J24 (Sail No. 4239) Dartmouth |
List classes of boat for sale |
International 14 Worlds |
Post Reply | Page <1 3456> |
Author | |
Kiwi Spy
Newbie Joined: 23 Feb 05 Online Status: Offline Posts: 20 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Topic: International 14 Worlds Posted: 28 Feb 05 at 2:53am |
Think it was a Worlds but not sure - someone else mentioned on I looked at both My point is that only A actually knows whe 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 Also interesting - surely A should have But we are in agreement here - Unfortunately PC's and Juries sometimes have to make decisions based on wildly differing evidence. All 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 It would depend on when you started your tactics and o We have all seen match races for fleet championships - but
KS Edited by Kiwi Spy |
|
Guest
Newbie Joined: 21 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Post Options Quote Reply 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 |
|
Contender443
Really should get out more Joined: 01 Oct 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 1211 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 28 Feb 05 at 9:31pm |
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
|
|
Kiwi Spy
Newbie Joined: 23 Feb 05 Online Status: Offline Posts: 20 |
Post Options Quote Reply 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 |
|
sargethesailor
Newbie Joined: 21 Feb 05 Online Status: Offline Posts: 12 |
Post Options Quote Reply 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. |
|
Kiwi Spy
Newbie Joined: 23 Feb 05 Online Status: Offline Posts: 20 |
Post Options Quote Reply 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 |
|
Stefan Lloyd
Really should get out more Joined: 03 Aug 04 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1599 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 01 Mar 05 at 8:14am |
Yes and why might you want to sail down a boat you cannot beat? Answer: team racing. |
|
Kiwi Spy
Newbie Joined: 23 Feb 05 Online Status: Offline Posts: 20 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 01 Mar 05 at 9:35am |
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 |
|
Guest
Newbie Joined: 21 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Post Options Quote Reply 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 |
|
Stefan Lloyd
Really should get out more Joined: 03 Aug 04 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1599 |
Post Options Quote Reply Posted: 01 Mar 05 at 12:59pm |
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. |
|
Post Reply | Page <1 3456> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |