New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Tour de France a la Voile -Am I missing something?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Tour de France a la Voile -Am I missing something?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
gordon View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 07 Sep 04
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1037 		Post Options Post Options   Quote gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Tour de France a la Voile -Am I missing something?
    Posted: 04 Jul 13 at 2:18pm
Whether we like it or not different cultures have different interpretations of the rules (I refer you to the current Lions tour as a perfect example).
 We once had a discussion on this forum about rule 69. If I remember rightly the British view on that incident was that a rule 69 hearing was appropriate whilst the Australians preferred refrring the affair to the competitor's club.

When judging in different countries one learns to accept this. From personal experience, in France, and especially on the M34 circuit, a broken bowsprit would not be considered serious damage as they all have a spare on shore and it takes little time to repair. So no need to retire.

However, such damage would be physical damage that made a boat's score considerably worse, and therefore redress would be appropriate.
Gordon
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 13 at 3:46pm
Originally posted by flaming

Originally posted by Brass

Originally posted by flaming

Given that they awarded redress because the performance of the boat was significantly diminished, you would have thought that it would have satisfied the definition of serious damage!
 
Where did 'they' (I presume you mean the jury) say the performance of the boat was 'significantly diminished'?
...
'significantly diminished' is not the same as 'seriously impaired'.
 

Well they give the damaged boat redress, as they felt the damage caused it's result to be materially altered.  So that must be significantly diminished right?
 
You only have to watch the replay of the race on the tracker to see just how slow they were downwind.
 
I was just very surprised at the result of the protest, as I had it as a nailed on that the at fault boat would get a DSQ from the leg.
 
When we're having a discussion about the rules:
  • it's helpful to use the language of the rules;  and
  • it's not helpful to put your own words into the mouth of the protest committee.
The Jury decisions are here
 
 
Relevantly Case 7 (protest) and Case 8 (request for redress)  were (translation my schoolboy french, can't blame Google this time)
 
Case 7:  FRA 18 has not given sufficient room at the mark to FRA 12 [Sodebo] in breach of rule 18.2( b ).  Penalty [taken by] FRA 18 effective in accordance with SI 15.1 and RRS 44.2.
Decision:  No additional penalty
 
Case 8:  Heard with Case 7.  Request for redress in accordance with RRS 62.1( b ).
Decision:  Score adjusted ...

Certainly the protest committee must (by necessary inference) have concluded that:

  • the 'boat's score must have been made significantly worse ... by physical damage because of the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2' because those are the conditions required by rule 62.1 and 62.1( b );  and
  • the 'physical damage' was not 'serious damage', otherwise the boat's penalty in accordance with rule 44.1( b ) would have been to retire.
There is no point in speculating how the jury 'felt':  we can only go on their published decision.
 
Originally posted by gordon

Whether we like it or not different cultures have different interpretations of the rules (I refer you to the current Lions tour as a perfect example).
We once had a discussion on this forum about rule 69. If I remember rightly the British view on that incident was that a rule 69 hearing was appropriate whilst the Australians preferred refrring the affair to the competitor's club.

When judging in different countries one learns to accept this. From personal experience, in France, and especially on the M34 circuit, a broken bowsprit would not be considered serious damage as they all have a spare on shore and it takes little time to repair. So no need to retire.

However, such damage would be physical damage that made a boat's score considerably worse, and therefore redress would be appropriate.
Thanks Gordon:  helpful insight.
 
There's also a discussion of levels of damage in the Match Racing context in a document attached at the end of Part E of the MR Umpires Manual
 

Penalties for Damage resulting from contact between boats racing.

Appendix C6.5(c) permits the protest committee to decide the penalty for breaking rule 14. This document explains how damage will be assessed and gives guidance on the appropriate level of penalty. The protest committee may still apply a different penalty if it has good reasons to do so. There are a number of things we are trying to achieve with penalties for damage:

 

• Minimise damage to keep costs down and avoid delays while boats are repaired.

• Ensure that penalties fit the breach.

• Ensure there is no advantage to well financed teams.

• Avoid hearings, especially at the later stages when spectator interest becomes hard to maintain.

• Provide consistent penalties for damage

 

So damage will be divided into 3 levels.

 

Level A - Minor Damage

Less than 1 man-hour to fix

Less than $US 100 cost

Boat may race without repair

 

Level B - Significant Damage

Less than 5 man-hours to fix

Less than $US 1000 cost

Boats may need some (temporary) work before racing again.

Level C - Major Damage

More than 5 man-hours to fix

More than $US 1000

Significant repair required before racing

Each event should determine the appropriate cost level depending on local circumstances and the event.



Edited by Brass - 04 Jul 13 at 3:57pm
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: 6662 		Post Options Post Options   Quote JimC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 13 at 3:55pm
I think is rather brave commenting too much on jury decisions that are being made in french rather than english. Very hard to get all the nuances if you are not an active sailor speaking in the language being used, let alone if you are trying to understand what's going on from translations of varying quality.
Back to Top
flaming View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 04 Oct 11
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 41 		Post Options Post Options   Quote flaming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 13 at 3:56pm
Sorry, I'd have thought it clear that "they felt" was shorthand for "we can infer from what they ruled..."

Anyway, I was mainly surprised because I was involved in a similar incident a few years back (again a broken spinnaker pole) and the decision was to allow redress, but also to DSQ the offending boat, even though they had spun.

I think Gordon probably has it right. Must remember not to retire if I ever cause damage in France!

Back to Top
gordon View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 07 Sep 04
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1037 		Post Options Post Options   Quote gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 13 at 8:53pm
Jim C

Pour moi le fait que les décisions sont pris en français ne pose pas de problème, car je peut arbitrer aussi bien en français qu'en anglais...

Which is not bad for someone who got an F at French O level.

At a recent M34 event a boat broke her bowsprit but a one turn penalty was deemed  sufficient.
Gordon
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy