However was the race start safe in the first place? A reaching start with 8 boats going at full speed and one of them decides to turn at almost 90 degrees to all the others presumably to slow down has resulted in a major crash.

Is this just a racing incident? Or is the root cause the design of the race course? You would never see one formula 1 car  deliberately going in a total different direction to all the others just to slow down.

I would say that it could have been any one of the 8 boats who crashed into another and no doubt it will happen again.

I agree. I don't see the F50s enduring in today's safety conscious era.

Looking back now at footage of the foiling AC72's they look so spectacular but also scary as hell with the crew perched up on top of the windward hull that can suddenly be 45 feet up when it all goes pear shaped! Maybe the F50s will soon look equally scary and we'll look back and think think how did they ever dare race those things!

https://sites.google.com/a/sailgp.com/noticeboard/home" rel="nofollow - https://sites.google.com/a/sailgp.com/noticeboard/home

I think the umpiring is actually excellent.  They just don’t use the rules and interpretations that you might use under normal RRS.  They are dangerous boats though, but GB knew they were to windward and had to give way to everybody.  I don’t think there are any excuses.  They got it wrong.  That is sport.

And as for giving the boat away - an apparently magnanimous gesture that the rules required them to do…

The now infamous Ainslie v Outeridge windward mark incident was a prime example. Ainslie was penalised despite being on starboard and outside of the 3 lengths zone so the only way he could realistically have avoided that was to tack onto port and sail to the wrong mark when JPN was still perhaps 10 lengths away!

Similarly the incident on the last leg of Race 4 in Australia. Windward boat was penalised for failing to respond quickly enough to a luff from a leeward boat gaining an overlap from behind then sailing above their proper course. Again the only way they could have avoided this was to alter course whilst they still had right of way.

And whilst I agree that Ainslie 100% caused the biggest crash yet, it is equally apparent that he absolutely didn't see JPN to leeward whereas they had perfect visibility to windward and every opportunity to bear away and avoid or at least mitigate the effects of the collision.

I'm aware that the RRS are re-written for this event, but they haven't deleted rules 14, 15 and 16 which never seem to be even considered by the umpires, let alone applied. It does look for all the world like all the umpires do is measure distance between boats then apply Port/Starboard or Windward/Leeward with no regard to when or how ROW was established.

Maybe it would be better if there were actual jury boats on the water with a better feel for the positioning of the boats, and keep the umpire as a fall back using the tech to help clarify specific points like overlaps and distance to marks when there was doubt. Like the way cricket does things?

Are we looking at the same video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9drboibspaM&ab_channel=SailGP

From 00:00 on this video, every single boat apart from Spain are overlapped to windward of Japan. Japan then holds that same course for 8 seconds before starting to bear away slowly. At 10 seconds GBR hit Japan. 

Wheres the ambiguity? GBR had 10 seconds to respond and did nothing. Japan don't have to anticipate GBR hitting them until its apparent that GBR aren't going to avoid. Which Japan do at the 9 second mark

I think the judging has been fine. I'm not a fan of the port inside boat getting mark room at the top but I can see why its there to make it safe.

No we're not!

  I'm absolutely not disputing Ainslie's culpability in this incident. My "how could the penalised boat have avoided that?" referred to the other incidents I mentioned in my post.

Sometimes you get penalised and don’t agree with it.  That is part of sport.   The idea that you can umpire on the water boats moving at this speed is fanciful.   The last thing we want is more fast moving difficult to manoeuvre boats getting in the way of each other!  Clearly the data is being sent to highly experienced people who have helped develop the playbook that the sailors are using.  It is competition and people will have different views and will want rules bent in certain ways.  The famous windward mark incident in Denmark between GB and Japan was ruled in favour of the boat which arrived at the zone first which is the spirit and intention of the rule as I see it.  

I am always amazed that they don’t have more incidents at the leeward mark when they all arrive together.   I think the whole thing is intrinsically unsafe which helps it be a spectacle to watch.  

Totally agree, but still we should look to make this process as accurate as possible.

Originally posted by Jon Meadowcroft The famous windward mark incident in Denmark between GB and Japan was ruled in favour of the boat which arrived at the zone first which is the spirit and intention of the rule as I see it.

Still I go back to my original point, which is how could GB have actually avoided this penalty? Agreed Japan arrived at the mark zone first, at which point GB conceded the mark and clearly gave room for them to tack inside. At this point Japan chose not to take that room and sailed to the other mark, presumably because they wanted to split and not get rolled into third place.

I think the real problem here is that the umpires made a snap decision, a point which I'll come back to, and having committed to that had no option but to double down on it later, which turned the whole thing into a bit of a farce afterwards

Originally posted by Jon Meadowcroft I watched again the video on the last leg of R4that was mentioned.  NZ went round ahead and went high.  Japan followed.  No problem here.  They got an overlap to leeward as NZ bore away.  They never went higher than NZ did.  Japan acquired right of way because NZ bore away.

I'd love to see a proper GPS plot of the tracks here, as to me it looked as though Japan bore off behind NZ to gain the overlap. Also useful to remember that it is their heading relative to the next mark that matters here - NZ are free to sail above proper course but Japan were not: even if the overlap were gained as you say they still cannot sail above proper course to the next mark

However the bigger picture to me is that both these cases were ruled on instantly, and this I think it a bad constraint imposed by the penalty system in place.

The effect of a "slow down" penalty is dramatically affected by how long it is taken to be awarded, as the race is playing out whilst a decision is being reached. Other sports like cricket have the opportunity to be completely paused whilst the umpires deliberate and examine data, often for several minutes. As such the "remote" umpiring can really improve the quality of the decision making process and can take other things into account such as fairness, benefit of doubt etc.

Or in other sports like F1 where the game can't be stopped penalty systems like fixed time interval "stop go" or docking positions are used. This takes the pressure off the umpires because the effect of the penalty is more or less the same whether it takes 10 seconds or 2 minutes to reach a decision.

But in SailGP we have neither of these, and the result is that the umpires have to make split second decisions then stand by them. If they delay then it has the effect of either increasing or decreasing the effect of the arbitrary "slow down behind" such that it may either decide the race or have no effect at all!

This is maybe not the end of the world in SailGP which really is a bit of glamorous fun geared around a fast moving arena format for TV, but to digress a little I think the Americas Cup ought to be looking for a better process for resolving infringements. AC75's look to be more than capable of performing 360 or 720 turns these days, or maybe there are other ways of applying an objective and consistent distance / time penalty. I mean, wouldn't it be fantastic if the AC match races could go back to "carrying" and offsetting penalties so that an infringement doesn't effectively end the race?

Against NZ I think that Japan are only restricted on proper course on the final leg if they are overlapped with NZ.  They can definitely go above and try and roll them to windward when they are behind.  They are following behind  and going below them and faster as NZ lost so much speed in the double tube.  there are two attempts by NZ to bear away and they seem to skid sideways into the path of Japan.  It looks like the foul is called on the first one of these?

Only when they become overlapped is the leeward boats proper course relevant is my view of it.

Japan reached the mark zone first which then requires GB to give them mark room which they were clearly doing, and which is their only obligation surely?

Originally posted by Jon Meadowcroft Against NZ I think that Japan are only restricted on proper course on the final leg if they are overlapped with NZ.  They can definitely go above and try and roll them to windward when they are behind.  They are following behind  and going below them and faster as NZ lost so much speed in the double tube.  there are two attempts by NZ to bear away and they seem to skid sideways into the path of Japan.  It looks like the foul is called on the first one of these? Only when they become overlapped is the leeward boats proper course relevant is my view of it.

I agree that as soon as the leeward boat becomes overlapped they must then sail no higher than their proper course.

I've just watched the video again and what I see is JPN gaining an overlap and NZ immediately altering course to avoid them, whilst they simultaneously bear away down to their proper course. Before the overlap both boats can freely sail the course they choose, and after it they both have an obligation to respond immediately to keep clear. They both do and there is no collision, so I don't see a rule broken.

JPN gain the overlap travelling at a significantly higher speed so I don't believe it is reasonable to say they gained right of way by NZ's actions, especially when NZ respond instantly the overlap is gained. In fact NZ turning away doesn't break the overlap which reinforces this point.

I really think both of these cases were bad calls made in haste by umpires pressured into snap decisions, and I'd hate to see the outcome of the AC decided by a call of this nature.

Last weeks Formula 1 controversy is perhaps a clear demonstration of what we need to avoid