Rules at Windward Mark - Video
Printed From: Yachts and Yachting Online
Category: General
Forum Name: Racing Rules
Forum Discription: Discuss the rules and your interpretations here
URL: http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8003
Printed Date: 07 Aug 25 at 9:21pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Rules at Windward Mark - Video
Posted By: ds797
Subject: Rules at Windward Mark - Video
Date Posted: 02 Jul 11 at 2:49pm
|
Hello can anyone help please? Whilst browsing the net, I found these two videos of Rainmaker Finngulf 331 during the Scottish series. The tactician is shouting to another boat "don't tack" and "there's no such thing as water at the windward mark". Is this correct and can someone explain/clarify this situation please? From Mast camera: http://www.rainmakersailing.com/page80.html From Cockpit camera: http://www.rainmakersailing.com/page80a.html Thanks for your help! |
Replies:
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 02 Jul 11 at 4:49pm
|
It appears that both boats are overlapped on Port tack.
I am presuming that they are just reaching the Starboard layline.
In the absence of any other boat, I would agree with the rainmaker tacticians assertion...
However, as far as I can make out, the 3rd boat approaching on Starboard gives the leeward boat an entitlement to call for 'room to tack' (at an obstruction) at which Rainmaker would have to allow room (probably by tacking themselves and putting themselves under the layline). Rainmaker pre-empted the leeward boats call for 'room to tack' and basically denied them a right. I would suggest that the leeward boat was 'bullied' out of turning the situation to their favour and burying Rainmaker under the layline.
Good call or bad call? depends how you look at it.
|
Posted By: AlexM
Date Posted: 02 Jul 11 at 5:02pm
|
Hmmm Im not sure about that....
I think that guy is wrong (PL was entitled to choose between tacking and bearing away (see rule 19.2(a)). )
http://game.finckh.net/reg_gbr/cases/case03.htm - http://game.finckh.net/reg_gbr/cases/case03.htm
------------- |
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 02 Jul 11 at 6:59pm
|
Yep, that is the way I see it as well.
I think there was a fair bit of 'gamesmanship' from Rainmakers tactician in stopping the leeward boat from tacking right up until the Starboard boat presented itself as an 'obstruction', then Port leeward could have hailed room to tack and Rainmaker would have been obliged to give it, otherwise there would have been an almighty *&%$*! I think the dialogue managed to bamboozle the other boat into taking option B (which at the end of the day probably didn't hurt it any more than tacking under the Starboard tack boat). meanwhile Rainmaker preserved its place on the layline. A win-win outcome for Rainmaker.
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 02 Jul 11 at 8:13pm
| Except that if Rainmaker is making hails to deliberately confuse another boat about what rules apply then I submit that they are in a sticky situation vis a vis Rule 2: fair sailing... If a protest came to a PC I was on then I would take a look at Case 47 and consider whether rule 2 applied to the situation, and if the PC considered it did Rainmaker would be scoring a DND... |
Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 02 Jul 11 at 9:54pm
|
It will all depend on the call from the leeward boat. 'water' to tack for a starboard call permitted, but if the leeward boat is NOT on a collision course then the call no water to tack is correct, however if the leeward boat decides to bear away then they must give enough water for the windward boat to do the same...fun eh? Studying the video in this case IMHO Rainmaker is in the wrong
|
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 03 Jul 11 at 8:46am
Quite.
However I would suggest that Rainmaker was correct up to a point, but ONLY up until the leeward boat was entitled to call for room to tack (which it didn't). Rainmaker was in a controlling position over the leeward boat and was asserting its position correctly. The dynamics only changed when the Starboard boat came on the scene.
At which point Rainmaker would have to concede room for leeward boat to tack is the contentious issue here. Since the leeward boat never made the call, then I think it would be difficult to pin anything on Rainmaker.
The leeward boat could have called 'room to tack' whilst keeping its escape route option open to duck the Starboard boat given that Rainmaker had given indication that it would not allow it to tack earlier, and could have put sufficient doubt in their mind, that Rainmaker would respond appropriately. In which case Rainmaker could get buried in a protest hearing.
EDIT: Having just checked the ISAF definition of an obstruction, it states within one hull length, so that is the point that leeward can call for room to tack. I don't think Rainmaker was calling NO at that point.
|
Posted By: laser4000
Date Posted: 03 Jul 11 at 1:00pm
No that's the definition of an obstruction - designed to distinguish between a 30 ft yacht and a 1ft piece of driftwood floating on the surface. It does NOT define the point in time in which the leeward boat can call for room to tack. They are overlapped at 3 BL and the leeward can hail when they feel their safety may be affected. (Preamble to case 54 states - When a boat approaching an obstruction has hailed for room to tack, the protest committee should normally accept her judgment as to when safety required the hail) Remember that under 20.1 PL needs to give PW (rainmaker) time to respond appropriately to the hail, which may be to tack - or hail 'you tack' (unlikely here) - got to allow a couple of seconds to get the lard to leeward to uncleat and go into a tack, and then PL would need to do the same. According to the RYA tables assuming a force 4, 30 foot boat (bit longer probably) then it will cover 1 BL in about 5 seconds - would a hail at 1 BL be sufficient to get all that done? I doubt it? |
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 03 Jul 11 at 5:02pm
| I concede the point you make (I guess it could be done in my little Laser), which seems to turn it back around to PL dictating the moment it 'needs' to call 'room to tack' rather than Rainmaker dictating it. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 04 Jul 11 at 5:13am
Snipped the bit about one boat length and obstruction: rule 19 applies when a boat is 'at' or maybe about to be 'at' an obstruction (rule 19.1) and rule 20 applies when a boat is 'approaching' an obstruction (rule 20.1). Are we all happy with that?
I agree PW was in the right. I think she was in the right throughout.
Until she hails for room to tack under rule 20, if PL tacks under PW's nose, she will almost inevitably brak rule 13 then, if not rule 13, rule 15. Whlle the loanguage grates on me too, that's near enough to being 'not allowed to tack'. See Case 15 which says (CASTN boat rule 12 no different from windward overlapped boat rule 11) the give way boat 'is entitled to hold her course and thereby prevent the other from tacking'.
If a tack will result in PL breaking rule 13 or 15, you cannot say she has a right to tack.
PL's right, initially was to change course to windward as far as head to wind (rule 11), then, once S is close enough, then PL obtained an entitlement to hail for room to tack under rule 20. Once PL hails under rule 20 she is most definitely 'not allowed to tack' until she has allowed PW time to respond (rule 20.1(a)). Only then does PL acquire a 'right' to tack.
The 'point Rainmaker would have to concede room for leeward boat to tack' is never reached because PL never (as far as I could hear) made a hail for room to tack.
Using rule 20 in a tactically aggresive way as you describe requires a pretty fair knowledge of the rules, to a degree that, if PL had been contemplating doing it, I wouldn't expect them to be distracted by a bit of shouting off their weather hip. All PL needed to do to set PW right back on her heels was to hail 'room to tack for the obstruction'. As far as I heard from the clips she never did this, and she eventually exercised her rule 19.2 choice and passed astern of S.
In my opinion, PW did nothing wrong. PW's hail was not misleading: for example she did not hail 'no room to tack', or 'don't call for water', she just called it as it was. PW had every right in the world to hail aggressively to prevent PL from breaking a rule where it would have been considerably to PW's disadvantage.
Sailors 'advise' their competitors about the rules on the water, at greater or lesser volume and with greater or lesser correctness all the time.
Yes, falsely bluffing a competitor about the rules is unsporting and breaks rule 2, but being loud, aggressive and possibly mistaken does not.
Case 47 deals with misleading hails. You can readily draw some principles from the first paragraph:
|
Posted By: laser193713
Date Posted: 04 Jul 11 at 3:21pm
|
Plain and simple really, they are a boat that has come in late on a port layline and the tactician has realised he has messed up so gets vocal and bullies his way through. He either knows he is in the wrong or is not very good and having got them stuck there in the first place the latter seems likely! They if a collision occured here they would have been in the wrong, the starboard boat couldnt be wrong, the boat that they shouted at have a choice of how to avoid the starboard boat, therefore had the middle boat asked for room to tack then they should have let them go. I think this is what happened, the middle boat called for room to tack and he replied with there is no room having not understood the request for room to tack. In that situation they should have tacked out and bailed, then protested later if they really thought they had a case. In the heat of the moment this is the reaction that most club level shouty tacticians would take though. As to why they posted this video online I do not know!? Makes them look very unproffesional and not a boat that I would want to sail on because of characters like the tactician! ------------- |
Posted By: SoggyBadger
Date Posted: 04 Jul 11 at 4:30pm
|
laser193713 has got it spot on. ------------- Best wishes from deep in the woods SB |
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 04 Jul 11 at 7:08pm
|
I've tried watching both clips and; established that the 'Starboard' boat had tacked from port, only assuming right of way @ 12 secs on the cockpit camera. There is a discrepancy of 4 secs between the masthead clip, so everything the Rainmaker tactician said on that clip up till 16 secs (4 second adjustment) on the mast cam is totally above board. He repeats (for the last time) 'do not tack guys' @ 18 seconds (4 second adjustment) on the mast cam before saying 'go for it' and tacking @ 24 secs (4 sec adjustment). So if you marry the audible from the mast cam to the inaudible cockpit cam then the last time he said 'do not tack guys' was 2 seconds after starboard had completed its tack and 6 seconds before he tacked himself. I don't think that is so unreasonable in such a dynamic situation.
It would be interesting to hear from somebody 1st hand.
|
Posted By: Contender443
Date Posted: 04 Jul 11 at 7:13pm
|
First of all ignore what is said by the tactician, he may have been confused in the heat of the moment . (we have all been there and made a poor call at some time)
In that situation can the leeward boat really force a windward boat to tack just because there is ONE boat coming up on starboard. L can clearly bear away and dip S and does this in the video. (different matter if there is a line of boats and no way through.
Quite clever of L if S is just on the layline or below it. They have forced W to tack before they want to and not given them the opportunity to dip S. On the other hand if S has overstood then W just got lucky. ------------- Bonnie Lass Contender 1764 |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 04 Jul 11 at 7:58pm
| If L calls W to tack for an obstruction W *must* either tack or say "you tack" and allow L to tack. If W thinks the call was unjustified their only recourse is to protest: they may not dispute the call. |
Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 04 Jul 11 at 10:44pm
| and also leeward boat IF it decides to duck has to be careful that W can also duck, as W has a call for water |
Posted By: asterix
Date Posted: 05 Jul 11 at 7:56am
yes, but isn't it time people stopped calling for water - it's been years and about three rule books since there was a call for 'water' if people call for 'water' when they mean 'room to tack' or 'mark room' should it be given ;-) ?
|
Posted By: ASok
Date Posted: 05 Jul 11 at 8:20am
+1 from me. There are plenty of characters out there like this. There may be more to it, but this video does not paint the guy in a good light ------------- |
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 05 Jul 11 at 9:31am
Yes, a boat can call for 'room to tack' to avoid a single ROW boat.
Guys, I think you all need to analyse the two videos more closely again.
The timing of Rainmaker tacticians hails are crucial in relationship to the whereabouts of the Starboard tack boat. Up until 12 seconds on the cockpit cam (16 seconds on the mast cam) there was NO starboard tack boat!
I get the impression that PL was wanting to tack earlier, and Rainmaker was entitled (as keep clear boat) to hold her course. The crucial matter of 'room to tack' for PL is totaly irrelevant for the early part of the videos.
This debate just goes to show how video (or photographic) evidence used in protests can be both enlightening and equally misleading. We only get to see (and hear) one perspective. Can't make out where the 'windward mark' is, or which side it is to be left on although that is probably irrelevant. We didn't hear or know of any hail from PL before the exchange. We can't hear a hail from PL after 12 seconds [cockpit] (16 seconds [mast] ) for room to tack. We don't know how the W / L overlap was established. We don't know if there are any more boats to windward of Rainmaker, etc. etc...
|
Posted By: laser193713
Date Posted: 05 Jul 11 at 4:30pm
|
Pretty clear the mark is rounded to port at the end of the video. They tack around the mark so they are bang on the port layline. The leeward boat clearly wanted to tack but had to bail out to leeward and that is shown in the video. Doesnt matter that the starboard boat has only just tacked either, they are outside the 3 length zone when they do tack and it is fairly clear that rainmaker are inside so have the right to tack inside provided they dont force the starboard boat above close hauled. Thanks for the +1s guys, i just have no time for shouty tacticians. Had an incident this weekend where a boat called for "water" at a leeward mark, there was never an overlap so i responeded with "no room, you have no overlap" at the point we reached the zone. The muppet shouting on the other boat got louder and louder shouting from the back of his boat. I was sat on the back quarter of our boat looking straight down out transom so knew exactly what was going on. He kept getting louder and louder until it became clear he was the mainsheet trimmer of the other boat and as they rounded the mark he was still shouting and the main was left flogging until his helm gave him a telling off and he very quickly sat down and got back to work. We had a good laugh about it as we sailed off into the distance! As a tactician i make a point of talking to other boats around and coming to an agreement with their crew about the situation before we reach the mark. I use hand signals to point down the transom and our bowman tells me what he can see of their transom, if he can see it we arent overlapped so we always drop early and take a tight line. It is always faster to do this than pile around the outside. At this point it is always important to tell other boats behind what you are doing and that you will not be leaving them space just because you are dropping early. Whatever the situation, communication is the key to getting what you want. If a boat shouted at us like that they would not get any special treatment, in fact we would probably do our best to put them in their place! If a crewmember from a boat talks calmly to us we are much more likely to do the same. ------------- |
Posted By: furtive
Date Posted: 05 Jul 11 at 5:05pm
| Just got round to watching the clips, and irrespective of whether he's right or not (as discussed above the port leeward boat can call for water to tack to avoid the obstruction (starboard boat) if on a collision course), being quite such an obnoxious little sh*t is not a great way to make friends on the race course. I suspect that that boat finds themselves being tacked on quite a lot, and rarely gets waved across on close crosses... |
Posted By: Garry
Date Posted: 05 Jul 11 at 9:42pm
|
Interesting, I think it would have been worth a protest, after all these are not lasers and carry some serious damage potential... I wonder if the leeward boat managed a sharp tack on the stern of the starboard boat they could shut out the windward port boat and still keep their position. Whatever the on the water situation - not a good advert for their business and certainly not a 'how to do the windward mark' ------------- Garry Lark 2252, Contender 298 www.cuckoos.eclipse.co.uk |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 05 Jul 11 at 10:52pm
Exactly what rule do you think was broken?
|
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 05 Jul 11 at 11:02pm
+1
|
Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 05 Jul 11 at 11:39pm
|
1) Judging distances on video is notoriously difficult. The judge manual goes into some detail about being aware of the shortcomings of video evidence. This is apposite. http://www.unrulyracing.com/2011/06/video-evidence.html - http://www.unrulyracing.com/2011/06/video-evidence.html 2) We first see the starboard boat at 8 seconds into the forward facing film. PL ducks at 18 seconds in. Assuming 10 metre boats at 5 knots, a boat length takes 4 seconds. At 6 knots, it's 3.2 seconds. 10 seconds is therefore about 2 1/2 to 3 boat lengths. Assuming they tack through 90, the boats are about 3 1/2 to 4 ish boat lengths apart at 8 seconds into the film - when we first see S. 3) 4ish boat lenghts and about 10 seconds away from an obstruction (S) certainly counts as "approaching" in my book, especially in big (well, bigger than dinghy-sized) boats. Especially as you have to allow time for PW to respond to your hail. 4)
Approaching an obstruction, if the leeward boats calls for room to tack - especilly if PL is calling for room to tack at about the 8 second mark in the film, there are only two legal responses. Either W tacks immediately, or calls "You tack". Nothing else is mentioned in the rules - especially screaming "you can't tack". The rules don't call call for specific wording to use when calling for room to tack. Here in the UK, calling for "water" is generally understood by most racing sailors. Unlike the protest situation, where if you don't use the word "protest", it gets chucked by the PC. (If PL had always wanted to duck, and done so, then PW could have asked for room between S and PL - 19.2). If this went to protest, and the evidence was that PL called for room to tack when approaching the obstruction (S), and PW's response was screaming "you can't tack", then it's 2 seconds thinking time for the PC before DSQ-ing PW. Assuming that the moment the second film stops is when PW rounds the mark, then: 18 doesn't apply between S and the two boats on P - neither have right to mark room from S. If S has to sail above close hauled to avoid PW after PW's tack, then PW has broken 18.3.a 18 does apply between the two boats on P - not that it matters as PL ducks S while PW tacks.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 12:05am
You are assuming that PL has hailed for room to tack. If that was the case then I agree that PW is gone for all money.
However I don't agree with your assumption. There is no evidence in the videos that PL has hailed at any stage.
|
Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 12:26am
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 12:29am
|
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 1:04am
I did like that, makes the point well. The accompanying discussion was only dissappointing because it dried up!
|
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 1:17am
The tactician on Rainmaker had a less obscured view than we do of the boats to leeward and could probably sight the 'starboard' boat in his peripheral vision, long before the 8 seconds mark. The 'starboard' boat didn't actually complete the tack onto starboard to become ROW boat until the 12 second mark on the forward facing camera. You are not expected to anticipate what another boat will do.
|
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 1:38am
ooh! no need to shout.
I think everyone who has contributed to the thread agrees with that.
I do however believe that Rainmaker was correct, if perhaps overly 'assertive' up until the 16 second mark on the rear facing camera (4 second syncronisation with forward camera @ 12 seconds).
The only dubious shout was 2 seconds later when the starboard boat was then on a closing course. Did that last shout dissuade PL from calling for room to tack at that point? They only had to make that obligatory counter call, even if they didn't think Rainmaker would yield...
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 1:59am
Relax Andy, Ed was just pointing out to me that he had made his assumption (which you and I disagree with) quite clear in his analysis.
|
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 3:57am
|
That's OK, It was only tongue in cheek...
|
Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 10:08am
|
I made no assumption. I said "if". Had I assumed that PL called for room, I would have said "I assume PL called for room to tack". Supposition =/= assumption. As always with these things, we're missing the story from the other boat. AISI, there are three possibilities. 1) PL called for rooom to tack. PW's response was "you can't tack". Chuck PW - 20. 2) PL always wanted to duck, and PW's screaming made no differrence. No harm, no foul. Don't believe this is the case, though, as it was a very late duck. 3) PL didn't call for room to tack because they were being shouted at by PW. Rule 2: 2 FAIR SAILING A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. A boat may be penalized under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated. A disqualification under this rule shall not be excluded from the boat’s series score. RYA guidelines on 69 are: http://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Racing/RacingInformation/RaceOfficials/Resource%20Centre/Best%20Practice%20Guidelines%20Policies/Competitor%20Misconduct.pdf - http://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Racing/RacingInformation/RaceOfficials/Resource%20Centre/Best%20Practice%20Guidelines%20Policies/Competitor%20Misconduct.pdf From that: "Bullying, intimidating, or discriminatory behaviour against another competitor" comes amongst the "types of alleged behaviour that may lead to action under rule 69, and the appropriate outcome if the allegation is proven" To my mind, the way that PW's tactician was screaming may well be considered as intimidating. And before people start saying "69 is a very big gun", well, as was pointed out by chump at an event I was umpiring at earlier this year, yes 69 CAN be a very big gun, but it doesn't have to be. It's the only rule whereby the PC can also just say "That was wrong. Don't do it again" - with no further sanction. Also, I don't see how screaming at other boats can be considered to be "compet(ing) in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play". Depends on the story from PL, but 2 and maybe 69 might be considered, and if so, DNE PW. Under all scenarios: S broke no rule. Complied with 13, complied with 15, complied with 16.1 (AFAICS, didn't alter course after her tack). PL broke no rule - complied with 10 wrt S, complied with 14. PW might have broken a rule. PW is the only boat that might be chucked. |
Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 10:17am
S gave PL plenty of "space a boat needs in the existing conditions while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way." S didn't break 15. |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 10:35am
| PE's three alternatives seem right on the money to me, although I haven't bothered to look at the video, so can't comment on the details. Much shouting at other competitors telling them what they should be doing does't seem to me to be the sort of thing that should be encouraged though... I think if there were a hearing option 3 would be an interesting one to talk through with the sailors on PL. |
Posted By: Ian29937
Date Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 11:24am
|
There is so much we don't know about the situation which would impact our interpretation. e.g. Did PL request water to tack before the footage started and was PW just responding? What was PL saying in response to PW's call? Did PL request water to tack for the starboard tacker obstruction? Boat to boat communication is always difficult and usually requires you to shout, sometimes repetitively to be heard. When you consider the wind noise on the forward facing video, was he just trying to be heard? Does PL have a bad reputation for not adhering to the rules and causing damage, I think all of us might be nervous if sailing near them and make our point more forcibly than normal.. Jury is out for me folks....
|
Posted By: Presuming Ed
Date Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 12:08pm
|
Having just had another look at the mast cam, I need to revise my wording - "screaming" is the wrong word. The tactician is being forthright and forceful. Hectoring? And still might be considered intimidating, though. And still very wrong wrt the right to room to tack at an obstruction. I think their attitude to the rules & rules knowledge is shown in this one..."Helm's down"....So? You can't be breaking a rule because you've decided to tack? The waving hands in the air reminds me of the period when the All Blacks used to all stand around offside, getting in the way, but waving their hands up. "Wot me gov? In the way? Can't be - I'me waving my hands" (Not that I'm suggesting that they're breaking a rule in this one). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JB1IuBfrMs - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JB1IuBfrMs [TUBE]8JB1IuBfrMs[/TUBE] "Helm's down". Is this the new "Fly the cloth"? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3361409791764024589
|
Posted By: laser193713
Date Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 3:15pm
|
The thing that really amuses me is that the only reason they can tack is because there is no such thing as water at the windward mark, if there was then they wouldnt be able to tack provided the boats are overlapped anyway... Bunch of muppets! Shame he never seems to get that 100kg frame of his off the centreline, then they would probably be ahead of those boats after a long beat! Rant over again, well for today anyway  ------------- |
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 9:45pm
Totally Agree
|
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 10:01pm
I quite agree with what you say. I was not suggesting that S, in assuming right of way had not given PL opportunity to keep clear.
The point I was trying to make, was that Rainmakers dialogue up until the point when S had completed its tack (@ 12 seconds) was correct (however it was delivered). Rainmaker, in principle, did not have to anticipate S becoming an obstruction to PL up until that point. Any contention is confined to what happened after that.
|
Posted By: Jon711
Date Posted: 06 Jul 11 at 11:59pm
|
This all getting most amusing, with all the different opinions (I will keep mine to myself - about time some may say!!)
It does make you realise, how difficult it is for a protest committee, to arrive at a decision, that is correct. If you loose a protest, they are all W***ers who know nothing, If you win they are related to Einstien!!. It is even harder, as I have experienced, when people in the hearing start lying!!! If this one had come to protest, however, would have love to been on the Protest Committee!! (And would probably be a W***er to some and a hero to others!). The video evidence seems pretty conclusive to me, but I would need to check that the two cameras times were synchronised (Now who thought about that? If they were to only rely on video evidence, it would be essential to check that the camera times were synchronised!! If not, the video eveidence only becomes circumstantial! IMO, and what is to stop them synchronising them once they had got out of the situation). A third party is needed to give an unbiased opinion of the events... Jon ------------- Blaze 711 |
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 07 Jul 11 at 6:28am
There is a 4 second 'delay' between the 2 videos which need to be taken into account. In doing so, Rainmakers assertions, certainly up until 16 seconds, on the audible mast (rear facing) cam are in order.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 07 Jul 11 at 6:42am
BTW, I don't think the video is conclusive at all: proves nothing about whether PL did or did not hail for room to tack.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 07 Jul 11 at 6:49am
No, that would be a really bad idea.
There are no 'magic words' for the initial rule 20 hail.
Q&A 2009-028 http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/QA2009028-%5B7231%5D.pdf - see answer D Everyone of the English Speaking Peoples (i.e. except 'Mercans) knows what 'water' means. It doesn't help the game to go inventing new and ever more prescriptive rules (although, I wouldn't be surprised to see a hand-signal requirement coming into rule 20 as for the Match Racing rules, rule C.2.7: I understand that they are having difficulties with the Extreme and AmCup cats: would need some special exemption for dinghys of course).
Context is everything Grasshopper: |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 07 Jul 11 at 9:05am
|
Would in informal hail be expected to reduce the time the boat being hailed is expected to take to tack away? For instance, would he be expected to inform the next boat out that he was going to need to take for a boat needing water? Common sense says it would be wise, but would it change anything at protest, if the hailing boat was protesting about how long it took the other boat to tack off? Or would it be ignored as irrelevant, as only the hail is needed in the rules? ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 07 Jul 11 at 10:55pm
I would expect it to reduce the time taken to respond, once the rule 20 hail is made, by a couple of seconds. Note, the hailed boat is not required to do anything at all in response to the 'preliminary conversation: she has every right to leave everyone on the rail, sheets and runners cleated (if that's how she rolls); she has no obligation to hail another boat, and she would have no right to have any response from any other boat at that time.
More importantly, the preliminary conversation reduces the chance of foul ups on the windward boat. Thus it doesn't significantly reduce the time expected to be taken, but it reduces the chance that the time taken will be longer than expected.
It is absolutely the responsibilty of the hailing boat to make sure she hails in time to allow the hailed boat enough time to respond, including time while it is not possible for the hailed boat to tack because of a boat or boats further to windward.
Case 113 addresses the 3 boat (W, M, L) scenario where W is able to hear L's rule 20 hail and it is clear that M must tack in order to give room to L, and M does not have room to tack and avoid W unless W either tacks or takes some other action.
Firstly, W, if she hears L's hail, is a ‘hailed boat’ in the context of rule 20.1 and she shall respond accordingly (by tacking ASAP or replying "You Tack"). Presumably if she hails 'You Tack' W must give room to tack and avoid her to both M and L, even though M neither hailed nor was entitled to do so.
Secondly, if W is not responding to L's hail, if M cannot respond to L's hail by hailing 'You Tack', (and therefore must respond to L's hail by tacking ASAP), and if M cannot tack because of the presence of W, she must immediately hail W for room to tack. If she fails to do this, and as a result is unable to tack as soon as possible, she breaks rule 20.1(b). Presumably W is then expected to respond in accordance with rule 20.2(b).
Case 113 thus creates two entirely new obligations, neither of which is stated in the rules:
|
Posted By: asterix
Date Posted: 08 Jul 11 at 8:33am
|
Brass - thanks for the very comprehensive replies! my last post was a bit tounge in cheek - hence the ;-) at the end I am in favour of polite and courteous informal hails/discussions on the approach to a situation that can be anticipated, but have found that not all crews seem to take any notice of them. What is the broader experience?
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 08 Jul 11 at 10:28am
Doesn't really matter does it? It may be that the other boat runs a quiet ship with no unnecessary talking to other boats. Yes, its at the opposite extreme to pointless shouting, but not, I suggest, an equal error. Some people find it helps their focus to not talk on the track. As long as you've told them what you will be doing you don't really need an answer... Its the actual hail that counts. |
Posted By: asterix
Date Posted: 08 Jul 11 at 10:35am
| no I agree, it dosent matter, and sometimes (often) the less shouting the better |
Posted By: Contender443
Date Posted: 08 Jul 11 at 11:33am
|
If this went to protest do you think Rainmaker will have used the video evidence? It is his video afterall.
I guess unless it is supplied by the organisers then there is no obligation to provide the evidence. Which in this case may prejudice Rainmaker. ------------- Bonnie Lass Contender 1764 |
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 08 Jul 11 at 7:02pm
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!
|
Posted By: asterix
Date Posted: 08 Jul 11 at 9:15pm
well their comment on youtube beneath the vid "This is Tiggs, the tactician on Rainmaker at the Scottish Series 2010 in Tarbert. He is carefully explaining the rules at the windward mark to one of our opposition. Unfortunately the other boat had to duck several competitors. Shame!!" makes it seem like they were happy with their use of the rules"
|
Posted By: laser193713
Date Posted: 08 Jul 11 at 9:32pm
|
They are currently doing plymouth race week, and not doing too badly either, although the fleet in plymouth isnt particularly strong. There are still some good boats there but not compared to the solent. It is actually the kind of fleet where you can shout your way through, one of the boats i raced on there had a habit of doing this and still not doing well really. I very quickly decided i would never race with them again, they didnt even go to the same bar as everyone else after sailing i assume because they didnt have many friends on the water!
------------- |
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 09 Jul 11 at 7:17am
|
That's a good spot.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 09 Jul 11 at 2:31pm
I have to ask once again: what rule do you think was broken?
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 09 Jul 11 at 7:46pm
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... |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 11 Jul 11 at 5:15am
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).
|
Posted By: asterix
Date Posted: 11 Jul 11 at 12:16pm
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 12 Jul 11 at 6:10pm
|
Thank you for the earlier reply, Brass. ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: Wobble
Date Posted: 21 Aug 11 at 12:51pm
There should be a sanction against boats posting snide and unsporting commentary about competitors. The other boat most likely is identifiable. They may be experienced sailors who wisely have ducked out of a confrontation with a nutter; they may be improvers who should be encouraged, not mocked. Either way, they are entitled to respect. You should be able to go sailing without some nonce posting a video purporting to show how great he is and how he taught you a lesson. |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 21 Aug 11 at 1:22pm
|
There should be a sanction against boats posting snide and unsporting commentary about competitors.[/QUOTE]
Funnily enough, in a previous post in this thread I said: "It doesn't help the game to go inventing new and ever more prescriptive rules " Don't go asking the racing rules to regulate personal behaviour that is unrelated to the fairness of the competition.
|
Posted By: Wobble
Date Posted: 21 Aug 11 at 4:27pm
| I definitely agree that there should be a reluctance to create new rules. But posting a video in that spirit is unsporting. |
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 21 Aug 11 at 9:12pm
|
Are we not more into the morals of everyday living than the racing rules of sailing, here? Difficult to see how the rules can govern something quite legal in the general scheme of things that happens long after everybody has gone home. ------------- Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686 |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 21 Aug 11 at 9:20pm
Bearing in mind what they've made themselves look like by posting it then I suggest any further sanction would be a work of supererogation:-) |
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 22 Aug 11 at 12:01am
Are you training to be a management consultant? |
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 22 Aug 11 at 7:22am
Touché! More of a theologian's word than a management consultant's really though: the concept is a little bit subtle for modern business speak... I felt I had to use it though: I think its a great word and I saw a news article suggesting that it was going to be dropped from the dictionary due to lack of use. |
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 22 Aug 11 at 7:35am
|
supererogatory [ˌsuːpərɛˈrɒgətərɪ
-trɪ]
adj
hc_dict()
1. performed to an extent exceeding that required or
expected
2. exceeding what is needed; superfluous
3. (Christianity / Roman Catholic Church) RC
Church of, characterizing, or relating to prayers, good works, etc.,
performed over and above those prescribed as obligatory
[from Medieval Latin superērogātōrius; see supererogate]
supererogatorily adv http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/misc/HarperCollinsProducts.aspx?English - |
Posted By: JohnW
Date Posted: 22 Aug 11 at 10:02am
|
I see there is a 1/2 page picture of Rainmaker on the Contents page of this months mag. ------------- |
Posted By: Wobble
Date Posted: 22 Aug 11 at 12:19pm
But the filming, which is carried out to make Rainmaker look good, and to negatively portray her opponent, is happening on the water, during a race. At best it's just not very pleasant. In most situations in life, if someone starts pointing a camera at you uninvited, you'd think they were some kind of weirdo. |