Rules at Windward Mark - Video

If this went to protest do you think Rainmaker will have used the video evidence? It is his video afterall.

Originally posted by Andymac Originally posted by Contender443 If this went to protest do you think Rainmaker will have used the video evidence? It is his video afterall.     Quite possibly. The fact that it was posted on youtube suggests to me they were happy with their use of the rules, and to more than keen to display their prowess.   If PL had pre-indicated that they would ask for 'room to tack' at an obstruction, or actually made the call, then as Presuming Ed pinpointed, they would be very vunerable to disqualification under rule 20 or possibly worse under rules 2 / 69. In which case, I think they would be well advised to keep it well under wraps!

Edited by Andymac - 09 Jul 11 at 10:53am

Originally posted by Brass I have to ask once again:  what rule do you think was broken?

Yes, we only have half the story, so we have no idea. It would be most interesting to hear from the other boat... Why was the tactician yelling you can't tack, you can't tack. I don't go round the racecourse randomly shouting at people... Surely something must have caused it.

Whats kinda bizarre is the other comment allegedly from on that boat "they had to duck a lot of boats - shame"

*IF* he was yelling that because the boat ahead had said they wanted to tack because of starboard boats, and he was yelling that they can't tack because it was at the windward mark then possibilities include
- that he was under some bizarre impression that because there is no water to tack for the mark at the windward mark you aren't allowed water to tack for a starboard boat either, then I would think that rule 20 was involved.
- if he did know the rules then not only rule 20 but also rules 2 and 69 might be applicable.

But maybe he was yelling for some other reason that's not aparent, like I say I don't know. All I do know is that I wouldn't want a video of me behaving like that posted on the net, but I hope it would be impossible to get one...

Originally posted by Brass Maybe we have all the 'story' there is.   PW foresaw that it was likely that PL would tack under her nose, breaking rule 13 and severely disrupting PW's approach to the mark.  Well knowing that PW had the right to prevent PL from tacking (Case 15:  inside give way boat, where outside boat cannot tack without breaking rule 13 'is entitled to hold her course and thereby prevent the other from tacking') PW hails aggressively to prevent PL from tacking.   PL never made a hail in accordance with rule 20, bearing in mind that she had no entitlement to do so until S had reached a close hauled course, which, as Andymac has observed, is about 12 seconds into the video of PW's tirade.   Some people around here seem to have taken the opinon that because PW is behaving loudly and rudely, and the video clip is accompanied by a snide sort of comment, that it is necessary, from the comfort of their armchairs, to discover some rule breach, so that PW can be appropriately punished for her rudeness.   Of course if PL had made a hail in accordance with rule 20 PW would have bee obliged to tack away (given that 'You Tack' probably wasn't feasible) IF PL had made that rule 20 hail and PW had not responded, then PW would have broken rule 20 and all the shouting in the world makes no difference whatsoever.  As PL bore away behind S, she did not fly a red flag, and presumably did not hail protest.  The inference I draw from this is that PL did not think PW broke any rule.  To my mind it is inconceivable that PL would have given a rule 20 hail, not received a proper response from PW and then let is slide (but if she did, that's nobodies business but her own).

You may be right that all PW's tactician 'saw' was a 'don't tack in my water' (rule 13) situation, but even if that was the correct case (no rule 20 calls etc), it was not PW's place to decide that PL "cannot tack" - PL (not PW) has to judge whether he/she can tack in accordance with the rules. 

Edited by asterix - 11 Jul 11 at 12:22pm