Extreme 40 crash decision
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=8143
Printed Date: 07 Aug 25 at 10:33pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Extreme 40 crash decision
Posted By: rb_stretch
Subject: Extreme 40 crash decision
Date Posted: 09 Aug 11 at 9:24pm
There was an incident with the Extreme 40s captured in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJpFueH1wvQ
Rothschilds protested and won. What I can't figure out is what was Artemis supposed to do. They were clear ahead on the same tack. They needed to tack for the mark as Rothschild would need to as well. They looked like the had completed the tack, before the collision. What could Artemis have done in the situation??
|
Replies:
Posted By: Quagers
Date Posted: 09 Aug 11 at 9:47pm
|
A better question is what more would you expect Rothschilds to do to avoid them? Make their boat disappear? As far as the rules are concerned the mark has absolutely nothing to do with this and it boils down to Dont tack in front of someone!
A more official explanation is that Roth doesn't need to start avoiding until Art is on a close hauled course on the new tack, they then have to have 'time and opportunity' to take avoiding action. If you watch the video you will see they start taking avoiding action while Art is still tacking, so Art has already fouled before the crash occurs.
Edited to add how I see it:
10sec Art starts to tack 14sec Art passes head to wind and becomes 'tacking boat' and has no rights 16sec Roth starts to try to bear away 18sec Art gets to close hauled 21sec Collision
|
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 10 Aug 11 at 8:51am
|
As Quangers says, Roth was under no obligation to 'anticipate ' that Art would tack. Art did not assume any rights until it was on a Starbord tack close hauled course (it had lost its same tack, clear ahead status when it passed head to wind. Despite starting to avoid Art before it had assumed rights, Roth still didn't manage to avoid the collision. Art has failed to provide time and opportunity for Roth to keep clear. Q.E.D.
|
Posted By: ASok
Date Posted: 10 Aug 11 at 12:22pm
More importantly, two crew members hanging upside down in the water and the tactician is just hell bent on waving the protest flag! Surely helping your buddies on first would have been the decent thing to do!
-------------
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 10 Aug 11 at 12:42pm
I would imagine that at this level he assumes others will be helping his team mates, and his job is to ensure the protest is deemed valid
-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 10 Aug 11 at 1:30pm
|
he actually goes for the protest flag way before the collision...so IMHO Roth did have time and opportunity to advoid the collision.... they watch the boat tack and at that point carry on another 1-2 boats lengths whilst artemis is stalled...IMHO as soon as they started the tack Roth should have started advoiding the collision
...before they start to advoid the collision 6 seconds passes that in thos collisions is a hell of a lot of distance
|
Posted By: Quagers
Date Posted: 10 Aug 11 at 4:50pm
|
Although that may be sensible from a boat preservation point of view its not at all required by the rules. I think both teams were caught out by Art stalling, but its still Arts fault.
|
Posted By: craiggo
Date Posted: 10 Aug 11 at 5:02pm
On one hand I agree that rothschild didnt need to anticpate artemis's tack, however as soon as Artemis was close hauled on their new tack, Rothschild should have started avoiding action. While they had little time to escape, bearing away in an extreme 40 is always a tricky move, which could lead to loss of steerage or even a pitchpole and therefore the only sensible way out of this would have been to throw in a crash tack which would have been possible if it hadnt been for the determination to get a good result. I would suggest that rb_stretch's comments are valid and that Rothschild should have been the ones penalised for not avoiding a collision. Its a fine line I agree, but the collision was avoidable had Rothschild chucked in a crash tack.
|
Posted By: rb_stretch
Date Posted: 10 Aug 11 at 9:42pm
|
My feeling was that Art threw in a tack on the layline in good faith
(and let's face it who wouldn't in that situation - well clear ahead within
the mark zone). The tack obviously got a bit messed up, but when you are
stalled what can you do? Rothschild was the only boat that could
control the situation at that point.
|
Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 11 Aug 11 at 8:15am
|
Rothschild didnt need to anticipate Artemiss tack they could see them tacking and probably anticipated that Artemis would acclerate out of the take,....thus NO problem, but Artemis stalled close hauled. In those conditions as craiggo says beraing away is a tricky manouvre, but if he had started when he saw the tack starting and not some 6 seconds later collision would have been advoidable and both boats would be sailing in the series
|
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 11 Aug 11 at 11:07am
So Roth stalled theiur rudders in the bearoff and so they win the protest; if I'd been sitting I'd have asked my Roth presented poor seeman ship (stalled rudders) and expect to win the protest. Simple question "why did you not ease the traveller to get contol of your rudders?" I would have expected they do have done this. There was plenty of wind, why were they not sailing correctly? I can only assume thjey knew this (they should know how to sail cats afterall) and were going for an expensive foul....
-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 11 Aug 11 at 12:05pm
Originally posted by Scooby_simon
So Roth stalled theiur rudders in the bearoff and so they win the protest; if I'd been sitting I'd have asked my Roth presented poor seeman ship (stalled rudders) and expect to win the protest. Simple question "why did you not ease the traveller to get contol of your rudders?" I would have expected they do have done this. There was plenty of wind, why were they not sailing correctly? I can only assume thjey knew this (they should know how to sail cats afterall) and were going for an expensive foul.... |
What rule do you say Rothschild broke?
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 11 Aug 11 at 12:12pm
Port and starboard, surely, if it was deemed they had time to avoid. I'm not convinced they did.
-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 11 Aug 11 at 12:54pm
|
I was on the water, and with a good view, and certainly my immediate view was that Roth had time...on viewing the video I think the time is 6 seconds before they take advoiding action. Although they appear to have taken the view to use match racing tactics, despite several calls from the PRO not to do this, of only taking advoiding action once a collision is inevitable and then claimimg not time advoid.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 11 Aug 11 at 1:22pm
|
Has anybody got any quarrel with the event sequence and timings posted by Quagers in Post 2? Looks ok to me.
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 11 Aug 11 at 1:24pm
Originally posted by Rupert
Port and starboard, surely, if it was deemed they had time to avoid. I'm not convinced they did.
|
Granted <g>. You just can't be on port tack and hit a boat, close hauled or below, on starboard without breaking rule 10. Whether or not the other boat gave you room to keep clear. ScoobyS, Your view?
|
Posted By: Quagers
Date Posted: 11 Aug 11 at 3:09pm
Originally posted by Stuart O
I was on the water, and with a good view, and certainly my immediate view was that Roth had time...on viewing the video I think the time is 6 seconds before they take advoiding action. Although they appear to have taken the view to use match racing tactics, despite several calls from the PRO not to do this, of only taking advoiding action once a collision is inevitable and then claimimg not time advoid. |
Surely that is 6 secs from when Art starts to tack? Which is not when Roth has to start avoiding, also they couldnt have know as Art goes into the tack that they would stall, I guess they assumed they would come out of the tack quickly and could pass behind no problem. In my view they started avoiding as soon as they realised it was all going wrong for Art.
And unless anyone disagrees with the timings I posted at the start of the thread, then Art was in the wrong because Roth started taking avoiding action before they were obliged to and there was still a collision.
|
Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 11 Aug 11 at 3:20pm
|
I think the key point there is that Roth assumed they would accelerate out of the tack. IMHO the tactics used are dubious, it is a tactic used in match racing so that the umpires know there wasnt time to advoid. In those conditions I personally may have started advoidance when the started the tack, which they easily would have seen. Its interesting but the chat on the quay after was that only 1 neutral skipper (if you can call any skipper in the neutral) viewed it as a 50/50
|
Posted By: Quagers
Date Posted: 11 Aug 11 at 3:28pm
|
But by admitting that they should have started to avoid when Art started to tack that means that Art is in the wrong, granted common sense says Roth could have started avoiding earlier and potentially could have avoided the crash but there was no reason for them to anticipate Art stalling and they began to avoid when it became clear that Art wasnt avoiding, which is exactly what they are required to do by the RRS. Regardless all this doesnt exonerate Art from their infringement so the protest committee can only find one way.
|
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 11 Aug 11 at 6:37pm
Originally posted by Stuart O
I think the key point there is that Roth assumed they would accelerate out of the tack. |
No, sorry the key point is that Roth doesn't have to assume anything; not that the other boat would tack onto starboard at the mark (as obvious as it is), nor that it may or not stall in doing so.
|
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 11 Aug 11 at 7:32pm
|
My view is that Roth simply broke Port vs stbd and if they had SAILED THE BOAT CORRECTLY they would have managed to avoid. It's a well know tactic that if windy and need a bear-off you DO NOT blow the Jib; You dump the mainsail+traveller and bear off; then ease the jib. Leaving the jib hard on pushes the bows away from the wind; stalls the slot as the main is eased and makes it easier. Roth simply sailed badly and thus broke P VS S. Simple. If they had dumped main and traveller and left the jib; they would have made it. They were only a few feet away from making it anyway (looks like they hit somewhere around the back beam??). If I had been on the protest ctte (Anyone know who was??) I would have been DSQing Roth for not avoiding the collision. Poor boat handling does not exonerate you!
-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
|
Posted By: ASok
Date Posted: 11 Aug 11 at 8:50pm
+1
I thought that once you had made the tack onto starboard you were right of way boat. Art had become starboard boat regardless of whether he'd accelerated out of the tack or not. Roth had sufficient time and space to avoid, but didn't.
I'm slightly confused by the decisions. Hoping that this discussion may enlighten me.
-------------
|
Posted By: laser4000
Date Posted: 11 Aug 11 at 9:13pm
Originally posted by ASok
+1
I thought that once you had made the tack onto starboard you were right of way boat. Art had become starboard boat regardless of whether he'd accelerated out of the tack or not. Roth had sufficient time and space to avoid, but didn't.
I'm slightly confused by the decisions. Hoping that this discussion may enlighten me.
|
You're pretty much right..
Once Artemis's tack is completed (i.e on a close-hauled course) she's acquired right of way (rule 13), she initially needs to give Rothschild room to keep clear (rule 15) (and not really relevant with these position's). Rothschild needs only to start to respond once Artemis's tack is completed - if she does what she can to keep clear and there's still a crash then Artemis has tacked too close, if not then Rothschild is in the wrong.
Whilst I'm not that familiar with how cats roll, it does look to me like rothschild only started responding once they spotted artemis had parked it, hence they are in the wrong (IMHO)
|
Posted By: rb_stretch
Date Posted: 11 Aug 11 at 10:03pm
Originally posted by Stuart O
Its interesting but the chat on the quay after was that only 1 neutral skipper (if you can call any skipper in the neutral) viewed it as a 50/50 |
Be curious what the others thought?
|
Posted By: craiggo
Date Posted: 11 Aug 11 at 10:55pm
|
I firmly believe that had Roth thrown the boat into a tack they would have avoided, or as Simon says, blown the traveller and dipped them. I'd be interested to hear who was on the protest comm. and why they made the decision they did, but if there is a way of avoiding a collision, it needs to be taken to avoid infringing rule 10 and I dont believe a sensible or right decision was made by the crew of Roth.
|
Posted By: Quagers
Date Posted: 11 Aug 11 at 10:56pm
Originally posted by laser4000
[QUOTE=ASok]+1
Whilst I'm not that familiar with how cats roll, it does look to me like rothschild only started responding once they spotted artemis had parked it, hence they are in the wrong (IMHO)
|
How do you figure that? They clearly begin bearing away before Art is down to close hauled. Also its very easy to say they should have done X,Y,Z but in the heat of the moment everyone makes mistakes. These boats are notoriously difficult to bear away in breeze, something which weve see in loads of past events. Clearly they tried to avoid, I dont think anyone that hasnt sailed these boats can pick apart their attempts because you simply dont know how they handle.
At the end of the day the protest committee who will have far more evidence that we have and are way more experienced in these boats handling characteristics decided that Roth made adequate attempts to avoid so I dont really think we can question that.
|
Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 12 Aug 11 at 7:47am
|
The others very much thought Roth was in the wrong....but its hard with these guys to get a neutral opinion simply because of the scoring system...there is a massive penalty IF you cause a collision.
|
Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 12 Aug 11 at 7:53am
Originally posted by Quagers
Originally posted by laser4000
[QUOTE=ASok]+1
Whilst I'm not that familiar with how cats roll, it does look to me like rothschild only started responding once they spotted artemis had parked it, hence they are in the wrong (IMHO)
|
How do you figure that? They clearly begin bearing away before Art is down to close hauled. Also its very easy to say they should have done X,Y,Z but in the heat of the moment everyone makes mistakes. These boats are notoriously difficult to bear away in breeze, something which weve see in loads of past events. Clearly they tried to avoid, I dont think anyone that hasnt sailed these boats can pick apart their attempts because you simply dont know how they handle.
At the end of the day the protest committee who will have far more evidence that we have and are way more experienced in these boats handling characteristics decided that Roth made adequate attempts to avoid so I dont really think we can question that. |
Actually the timings show the complete opposite Its interesting that you argue that these boats are difficult to bear away yet you ignore the argument that they should have started the bear away when they saw the tack starting thus removing the 6 second delay. What is more interesting is that on Thursday the umpires were in better positions to judge these manouvres and were penalising anything that looked closed. IMHO if they taken this approach it would have saved 1 extreme 40 from the knackers yard (Artemis got written off) and saved a bit of carbon on the front of Roth
|
Posted By: Quagers
Date Posted: 12 Aug 11 at 8:24am
|
Thats because im sure they thought they had no need to bear away, I imagine the thought process was something like
'Art is tacking, they'll probably get across our bow then we'll tack'
'ohh sh*t they've ballsed it up dump dump dump'
Why would you start to bear away for a boat you think is going to cross? Only when the situation then changes which happens when Art stalls would consider it, and I think they did react the moment it became clear that was the case.
|
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 12 Aug 11 at 8:39pm
Originally posted by Quagers
Thats because im sure they thought they had no need to bear away, I imagine the thought process was something like
'Art is tacking, they'll probably get across our bow then we'll tack'
'ohh sh*t they've ballsed it up dump dump dump'
Why would you start to bear away for a boat you think is going to cross? Only when the situation then changes which happens when Art stalls would consider it, and I think they did react the moment it became clear that was the case. |
They began to react Yes; and sailed the boat badly and caused a collision. IF they had sailed the boat correctly they would have cleard them. They did not dump enough main+ traveller AND they dumped the jib - they sailed poorly - Should be DSQ.
-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
|
Posted By: Quagers
Date Posted: 12 Aug 11 at 8:48pm
|
So you would have DSQ'd both Art and Roth?
|
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 12 Aug 11 at 9:18pm
Originally posted by Quagers
So you would have DSQ'd both Art and Roth? |
No DSQ Roth for not avoiding the collision. Roth sailed poorly and that resulted in the colission.
-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
|
Posted By: Quagers
Date Posted: 12 Aug 11 at 10:30pm
|
That doesn't exonerate Art though? You said yourself that Roth should have started avoiding when Art starts to tack, if that was the only way to avoid collision then Art has tacked too close because Roth shouldn't need to start to take action until the tacking boat has reached close hauled.
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 12 Aug 11 at 10:46pm
Damn guys: how clear a case of tacking in someone's water do you need?
GE had Artemis pinned on the tack they were on: unable to tack before GE without infringing. I believe its a fairly standard match racing tactic.
It happens to me from time to time club racing in the Canoe - have to go a distance beyond the windward mark because there's a boat behind and to windward that I won't clear in the time it takes me to *reliably* tack the canoe and get up to speed.
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 12 Aug 11 at 11:28pm
|
Quite agree Jim - even happens in Fireflies, and they tack on a sixpence.
Since when can you be disqualified for sailing poorly, Scooby? And if you could be, then starboard would be binned too, for cocking the tack up. Bloody hell, I'd be thrown out of most races...
-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
Posted By: laser4000
Date Posted: 12 Aug 11 at 11:35pm
Originally posted by JimC
Damn guys: how clear a case of tacking in someone's water do you need?
|
No I think it proves how hard is to make a firm decision from just on viwepoint, especially if you don't have a huge amount of experience handling those boat types...
|
Posted By: rb_stretch
Date Posted: 13 Aug 11 at 8:31am
Originally posted by JimC
Damn guys: how clear a case of tacking in someone's water do you need?
|
I posted the link as for me the debate is not about tacking in water, but the fact that it looked like an avoidable collision. The protest outcome seems to encourage collision as a way to demonstrate you were in the right. This is bad news for big boat sailing where collisions run the risk of injury and potentially death.
Not knowing Extreme 40 there appears to be two scenarios:
1. Extreme 40s routinely take that long to tack. In this case the video makes it look like R was trying to make a point of the being tacked on and was pushing their luck to demonstrate there was a collision course and that actually resulted in a collision. I would have hoped that racing rules and protest committees would encourage the situation where R would know they were on collision course at the start of the situation, they could have taken avoiding action earlier, protested and got A disqualified.
2. A fluffed their tack. In this case A started a move in good faith. Once stalled there was nothing they could do as they were dead in the water. All the ability to control the situation was with Rothschild and it looked like they were not doing everything possible to avoid a collision. You would hope that again the RRS and protest committees would encourage people to do everything possible to avoid a collision. It certainly would have been obvious if R had to dump the main, that they were taking avoiding action and hence won a protest.
With either of the scenarios R does not look good, but protest committee seem to exonerate them on all accounts. That is what I don't feel comfortable with.
|
Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 13 Aug 11 at 11:52am
|
Totally agree Rupert...not a tacking in water and scenario 1 very much my argument. Also Art argued that rightly so nowhere in the rules does it say that the boat has to be moving and whilst the sat not moving they where on starboard tack in a close hauled position, although moving towards Roth at about 6 knots in a sideways direction. Just to add to the mix...case was reopened and Roth also scored DSQ for failing to advoid an advoidable collision
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 13 Aug 11 at 12:00pm
Originally posted by rb_stretch
the fact that it looked like an avoidable collision. The protest outcome seems to encourage collision as a way to demonstrate you were in the right. |
I really don't know how you get there. Of course it was an avoidable collision: *THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TACKED*. You don't tack if by doing so you create a collision situation.
[added] The DSQ for EG seems pretty harsh as they started to take avoiding action while they still had right of way by the rules... I'm not sure what else they could have done from the video. Trying to luff across the bows of an accelerating boat is not a great idea, nor is a crash tack in something that big. It seems like quite a big call to suggest that attempting the duck to avoid was so much the wrong thing to do that it warrants a DSQ.
|
Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 13 Aug 11 at 12:02pm
|
sorry Jim updating post...
|
Posted By: rb_stretch
Date Posted: 13 Aug 11 at 12:55pm
Originally posted by JimC
I really don't know how you get there. Of course it was an avoidable collision: *THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TACKED*. You don't tack if by doing so you create a collision situation.
|
I agree that they shouldn't have tacked in scenario 1, but that doesn't absolve R from taking avoiding action if A did tack. That is the racing rules.
Given the latest news I think that sends the right message which is above all else avoid a collision and use the rules to get your redress.
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 13 Aug 11 at 1:26pm
They shouldn't have tacked in any scenario I can see... Still seems weird to me... Consider the situation on EG.
"OK guys, we've got them pinned. Keep her going until we're right past the layline and we'll tack ahead of them and take the race..."
"******* **** they're tacking"
"What? No? ****, *****, can't crash tack at this ********* speed she'll capsize on the roundup, ****, ease the ******* main, duck, down"
[FX bang]
|
Posted By: asterix
Date Posted: 13 Aug 11 at 2:53pm
|
To me the video makes it look questionable as to whether Artemis actually tacked slightly too soon. Even if they hadn't been hit by Roth, Art might have struggled to make the mark anyway. If Art had waited fractionally before tacking then they might have been able to keep further from head to wind and kept a bit more speed on through the tack (as it was they were almost going backwards at one point).
|
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 13 Aug 11 at 3:03pm
Originally posted by JimC
They shouldn't have tacked in any scenario I can see... Still seems weird to me... Consider the situation on EG.
"OK guys, we've got them pinned. Keep her going until we're right past the layline and we'll tack ahead of them and take the race..."
"******* **** they're tacking"
"What? No? ****, *****, can't crash tack at this ********* speed she'll capsize on the roundup, ****, ease the ******* main, duck, down"
[FX bang] |
Jim; do boats capsize when they HEADUP ? Do Cats capsize when they headup?
-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 21 Sep 11 at 10:16pm
In the somewhat curt words of a Jury's findings:
Facts found: On a beat, with both boats on port, A was clear ahead of R. A luffed and passed beyond head to wind. Before A reached a close-hauled course, R, now on a collision course, started to bear away. There was contact, causing considerable damage to both boats, between A's port quarter and R's port bow.
Conclusion: A, whilst tacking, did not keep clear of R. A broke rule 13.
R, right of way boat, took action to avoid contact when it became obvious that A was not keeping clear but was unable to avoid contact. Rule 14(a) applies. A rule 44 penalty is not appropriate as A's breach of rule 13 caused serious damage (44.1(b)
Decision: A is disqualified
Gordon
-------------
Gordon
|
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 21 Sep 11 at 10:44pm
|
Gordon; so does
this set a precedent that we HAVE TO ASSUME that crew(s) will not sail the boat
properly and thus allow room for people who do not know how to sail the boat
(or boats) properly.
I still hold the opinion that IF they had blown the
main and not eased the Jib they WOULD have made the bear-off easily... (or they
could have tacked)
-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 22 Sep 11 at 2:03am
Originally posted by Scooby_simon
Gordon; so does this set a precedent that we HAVE TO ASSUME that crew(s) will not sail the boat properly and thus allow room for people who do not know how to sail the boat (or boats) properly.
I still hold the opinion that IF they had blown the main and not eased the Jib they WOULD have made the bear-off easily... (or they could have tacked) |
Reading (or writing) between the lines of the protest decision:
When R started to bear away after A passed head to wind, R had a reasonable apprehension of collision, which under Case 50 means that A had, at that instant failed to keep clear and broken rule 13.
R bore away to a course that, had A accelerated normally out of her tack, would have been sufficient for R to pass behind A.
A stalled and did not accelerate normally out of her tack. It was only at this point that it became clear to R (or anybody else) that A would not keep clear of R's new course. This was the point at which time starts to run for R to avoid contact under rule 14(a).
Starting from the point where it became clear that A was not accelerating normally out of her tack, it was then not reasonably possible for R to further change course or take any other action to avoid contact.
R did not break rule 14.
It's not clear who Simon is referring to when he says "we HAVE TO ASSUME that crew(s) will not sail the boat properly and thus allow room".
The protest decision did not address 'room'.
With regard to A, when she reached a close hauled course, she would have had an obligation under rule 15 to give R room to keep clear, but by that time, A had already failed to keep clear of R thus breaking rule 13. Once a boat has broken rule 13, there is little point in going into whether, in the same incident, but a few seconds later, having gained right of way, she also failed to give room to keep clear.
With regard to R, when she first bore away to avoid A, she had an obligation under rule 16 to give A space a she needed [to keep clear of R] in the existing conditions while manoeuvring promptly in a seamanlike way. Arguably A's failure to accelerate normally out of her tack was not manoeuvering promptly in a seamanlike way, thus R did not fail to give A room to which she was entitled, and R did not break rule 16.
Simon is entitled to his opinion but, given that he was not in a good position to observe the incident directly and did not hear the evidence given to the protest committee, there is no reason for the rest of us to prefer his opinion to the opinion of the protest committee.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 22 Sep 11 at 8:01am
Totally agree with Brass - I should point out that the "Jury's findings" were an attempt to write up the incident as a Jury would have done, rather than a quote from an actual hearing!
Incidentally - rule 14 states "shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible". The rule imposes an obligation to take action, not an obligation that the action should succeed!
On the other hand, rule 13 places an absolute obligation on the tacking boat to keep clear. If the tacking boat has not allowed enough room to keep clear if the tack is less than perfect that is her problem and no-one else's.
In this case, however, my reading of the incident is that rule 13 was broken almost immediately after A passed beyond head to wind. As soon as R reasonably felt it necessary to bear away, A had broken the rule. A's failure to accelerate out of the tack did not break a rule, but rendered the collision inevitable.
Gordon
-------------
Gordon
|
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 22 Sep 11 at 8:26am
Originally posted by gordon
Totally agree with Brass |
+1
|
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 22 Sep 11 at 8:30am
Originally posted by gordon
In this case, however, my reading of the incident is that rule 13 was broken almost immediately after A passed beyond head to wind. As soon as R reasonably felt it necessary to bear away, A had broken the rule. A's failure to accelerate out of the tack did not break a rule, but rendered the collision inevitable.
Gordon
|
OK; Given R did not sail the boat as any CAT SAILOR would expect, ie they dumped the Jib (thus making the bear-off difficult) and did not dump the mainsail (thus making it even more difficult). Does the poor boat handling of R (Dump jib; don't dump main) not have bearing on this? it's my reading / understanding that R needs to take REASONABLE action to avoid A what is now on STBD; my point is that I believe dumping the jib, and not dumping the main, is NOT REASONABE action when attemping to bear off in a catamaran. IF the main HAD been dumped and the jib NOT eased, I firmly believe that they WOULD have avoided this collission. It's a moot point; but I believe has implcations for any close call in cat racing. thus If I am A, do I have to assume that R will not act in a reasonable manner when bearing off? (and thus assume they will carry on on current heading and thus allow "extra" room. IF I am R, Can I assume that I do not have to act in a reasonable manner when avoiding a boat that has tacked onto stbd (but may have stalled), and that if I do (dump jib/don't dump main) that I will be exonerated? Given this decision, do we now assume boats will NOT take reasonable actions?
-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 22 Sep 11 at 8:42am
WHEN A broke rule 13, R took reasonable action by changing course. At this point A was on starboard but subject to rule 13. R was entitled to continue sailing her course without taking avoiding action, but could not do so because A had broken a rule.
When, subsequently, A compounded her error by failing to accelerate out of the tack, R took further action, which may have been ineffectual. It may well have been that the jib sheet crew's instinct was to tack, but the helmsman's instinct was to bear away. There was little or no time for a discussion! The rule only requires R to take action to avoid a collision - it does not oblige her to take any particular action, or to succeed.
This case is about A making a risky decision to tack and failing to give R room to keep clear.
Gordon
-------------
Gordon
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 22 Sep 11 at 3:15pm
Originally posted by gordon
Totally agree with Brass |
Thank you kindly
Originally posted by gordon
Incidentally - rule 14 states "shall avoid contact with another boat if reasonably possible". The rule imposes an obligation to take action, not an obligation that the action should succeed! |
Sorry, I can't agree with that.
Rule 14 (llike most of the post 1995 rules) imposes an outcome-based obligation, 'to avoid contact', with a limitation or condition 'if reasonably possible'. It does NOT mandate 'action to avoid contact'.
This may be contrasted with pre-1995 rule 32.1 which required a boat 'to make a reasonable attempt to avoid collision'.
Under rule 14 as it stands, if it becomes impossible for a boat to avoid contact, say because of a sudden round-up under her nose, she is not obliged to take any action or attempt to avoid for to not break the rule because of the impossibility.
|
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 22 Sep 11 at 3:29pm
Originally posted by gordon
WHEN A broke rule 13, R took reasonable action by changing course. At this point A was on starboard but subject to rule 13. R was entitled to continue sailing her course without taking avoiding action, but could not do so because A had broken a rule.
When, subsequently, A compounded her error by failing to accelerate out of the tack, R took further action, which may have been ineffectual. It may well have been that the jib sheet crew's instinct was to tack, but the helmsman's instinct was to bear away. There was little or no time for a discussion! The rule only requires R to take action to avoid a collision - it does not oblige her to take any particular action, or to succeed.
This case is about A making a risky decision to tack and failing to give R room to keep clear.
Gordon
|
You say A took a risky decision; IF R had sailed the boat properly there would have been no collision. Thus no risk by A; as I stated above; R failed to sail the boat correctly and by their ineffectual action, the collision occured. So; in the case; are you stating (and I do want to understand this) that as long as R does SOMETHING to avoid A when ROW boat; and there is a collision then R is OK, even if they do not do what is reasonably expected of them (so in this case to not dump the jib and to dump the main to aid the the bear off). When I saw this happen; as soon as they dumped the jib I knew they were in trouble; you can see the rudders stall and that's it; they are passengers to the scene of the accident....
-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
|
Posted By: ob1
Date Posted: 22 Sep 11 at 3:54pm
|
Hi guys - I have been folowing this thread with interest. I think I understand both of the arguments being put. I think A felt under pressure to make the rounding and tacked slightly too early (thereby taking a risk) and this was at least part of the cause of A's slow and bad tack. I understand Simon's argument that if sailied differently (better), R might have successfully avoided the collision, but as the jury didn't seem to comment on the reasonablness of R's actions (unless you know differently), I certainly don't think any precident has been set regarding anticipating whether a boat will be sailed reasonably or in a seamanlike manner or whether it will be sailed badly.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 22 Sep 11 at 4:21pm
If a Jury had decided that R did not act to avoid contact with A when it became clear that A was not keeping clear that would not change the fact that A broke rule 13. However, we have established that she did take avoiding action. It could be argued that she took avoiding action twice, once by bearing away to pass behind a boat (A) that should accelerate on the new tack and then a further bear away to pass behind A when it was clear that A had stalled. The second bear away was reasonable but unsuccesful.
Question, on these boats, with the wind as it was, how long does it take to dump the main?
-------------
Gordon
|
Posted By: tornado435
Date Posted: 22 Sep 11 at 4:57pm
|
Not that long, its on hydraulics with a special dump button.
Only issue could have been if the Hydraulic selector wasn't on main but on cunningham or traveller.
|
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 22 Sep 11 at 5:06pm
Originally posted by gordon
If a Jury had decided that R did not act to avoid contact with A when it became clear that A was not keeping clear that would not change the fact that A broke rule 13. However, we have established that she did take avoiding action. It could be argued that she took avoiding action twice, once by bearing away to pass behind a boat (A) that should accelerate on the new tack and then a further bear away to pass behind A when it was clear that A had stalled. The second bear away was reasonable but unsuccesful.
Question, on these boats, with the wind as it was, how long does it take to dump the main?
|
BUT Gordon; I would argue that neither part of the bear-away were "reasonable" BECAUSE they dumped the Jib and did not dump the mainsail. Were there any cat sailors on the jury? If I have been on A; I would have argued that it is common knowledge that you MUST NOT dump the jib when trying to bear off and so they DID NOT take reasonable action to avoid. IF sail handling and "reasonable" does not mean "common practice" then this makes the burdon on A massive as they HAVE to assume that the boat may attemp to bear off; dump the jib and thus carry on on a very similar heading.... OR the boat may attempt to head up (to slow and/or to tack). and fail to do so as well........
-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 22 Sep 11 at 6:19pm
1 These races were umpired I believe. There may have been a rule 14 hearing;
2 If you study the video carefully the main sheet on R is trimmed out at least twice - you can see a clear flick as this happens. The jib is trimmed at same time. On one of these trims jib flogs and is instantly resheeted.
3 I hope we are all agreed that A broke rule 13. I am satisfied that R took action as soon as it was clear that A was not keeping clear, but were surprised when A's poor tack meant that A stalled.
You are not satisfied that this is the case. A good illustration of why there are members of a protest committee, and 5 on an international jury. Decisions are not always unanimous.
Gordon
-------------
Gordon
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 22 Sep 11 at 7:12pm
Originally posted by Scooby_simon
...then this makes the burdon on A massive as they HAVE to assume that the boat may attemp to bear off; dump the jib and thus carry on on a very similar heading |
Yes, the burden on A is massive. They may not tack unless they can be sure that they can complete the tack before the boat behind has to *start* taking avoiding action.
Ahead but to leeward and needing to tack is not a good place to be on the approach to a windward mark. The video makes it clear that this is particularly the case with these ultra fast multihulls.
|
Posted By: Skiffman
Date Posted: 24 Sep 11 at 10:38pm
Interesting read what everyone thinks, personally it is not clear cut and a different jury would probably find a different outcome. This is certainly in the grey area for more than one reason.
Personally I think there are a few things that have probably gone unsaid that hugely effected the decisions of the crew on R.
First of all A has tacked tight on the lay. R does not want to tack below as they will get rolled and miss the mark. Tacking a 40 is much easier than a duck, a tack in this situation would most likely of not caused any problem.
So next thing is that if R starts to duck early and makes it look very hard, the jury could penelise A. Think of the Greece duck on Ben a few years ago,
Now R has started to duck but A has not done a great tack, R still wants to make it look close but at the same time wants to be in a situation to be able to tack straight after the duck. As said the 40 has a dump valve on the mainsheet where all the pressure gets released instantly. If the button had been pressed and the main released there would not have been a collision.
Why was the button not pressed? First off they could have tried and it failed or it could have not been on the mainsheet but on the cunningham etc. Then playing devils advocate, what if R did not want to press the dump valve because if they did they would not be able to tack straight after the duck. Therefore putting them further behind...
At the end of the day you do not know exactly what went on, but has opened up how much room you need to avoid in future decisions.
Just for reference for me I think its 50/50 as I do not know the whole story and nor am I an international jury.
Also I do not know what is a seamanlike way of avoiding contact is in a 40.
The whole thing is really interesting because often happens in 49ers but I do not think before seeing the jurys decision on this you could ever go to protest being R. Although the one thing that is very difficult is what seamanlike for the top guys is not going to seamanlike for the back markers...
-------------
49er GBR5
http://www.teamfletcherandsign.co.uk - teamfletcherandsign.co.uk
Team Fletcher and Sign campaign site
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 25 Sep 11 at 4:47pm
R's option to tack was somewhat limited by the white boat that was following them.
The video evidence seems to make it clear that R took reasonable avoiding action when A passed through head to wind and broke rule 13. A then completed her tack and stalled. A had acquired ROW and did not give R room to keep clear. Having already broken rule 13 A then broke rule 15.
Although R MAY have avoided contact by tacking when A passed head to wind, she was under no obligation to do so. When R initially bore away this was a reasonable and seamanlike manoeuvre. It was only when A compounded her initial error by failing to tack smoothly that it became clear that R's initial bear away was not sufficient. At this moment R had already started to bear away and tacking was no longer an option. Attempting to bear away was by then the only seamanlike manoeuvre.
I agree that this incident does demonstrate that a boat required to keep clear or give room must allow a considerable space.
Gordon
-------------
Gordon
|
Posted By: Skiffman
Date Posted: 25 Sep 11 at 10:47pm
|
I think that your position is clear Gordon but my question is could R have made more of an effort to bear away? The mainsheet was not released fully, if it had they would have had no problem ducking. So why was the mainsheet not released fully? Was it because they wanted to keep it on so they could do a good tack or was it because of a malfunction? Which is probably only the guys on R will know.
It will be interesting if this makes it into the case book as there is a lot of room required. More so than I have ever thought or ever seen in 49er racing!
-------------
49er GBR5
http://www.teamfletcherandsign.co.uk - teamfletcherandsign.co.uk
Team Fletcher and Sign campaign site
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 26 Sep 11 at 12:19am
|
There's no doubt that R could have made 'more of an effort to bear away'.
The question is, why should anyone think she was obliged to make 'more of an effort'?
At the time R bore away, she bore away to a course which, had A accelerated out of her tack normally, would have passed astern of A. It was reasonable for R to bear away enough to miss A but no more.
The next observable event was that A did not accelerate normally out of her tack. It was at this point that it became clear to R, that on her new course, A was no longer keeping clear, but now there was insufficient time for R to bear away further, that is, at that time, it was not reasonably possible for R to avoid contact with A in the new circumstances. Thus R did not break rule 14 as limited by rule 14(a).
This situation is not about 'room'. It is a simple rule 13 and rule 14 case.
|
Posted By: rb_stretch
Date Posted: 26 Sep 11 at 2:18pm
My original concern in starting this thread was that boats are expensive items and serious damage through collisions and any injury risks should be discouraged at all times. My own experience of protests (particularly keelboats) was that this indeed was the primary concern - avoid collisions first, then debate the rules later.
On first viewing of the video, I didn't think R had made every effort to bear away, so I was concerned the wrong message was being sent out ie. it's OK to collide if you are in the right. If my observation was wrong and R had made every attempt, then I would be happy with the decision. However there don't seem to be many people on here who can argue then they couldn't have done more.
What if the collision had resulted in loss of life (quite possible in those boats at those speeds)? Would the decision be the same? Would the decision be right?
|
Posted By: I luv Wight
Date Posted: 26 Sep 11 at 3:04pm
But lessons were learned... later on in the week, the exact same positioning occurred, but the boat ahead and slightly to leeward waited to tack until the other boat had tacked on the layline ( and 'lost' a place. )
-------------
" rel="nofollow -
http://www.bloodaxeboats.co.uk" rel="nofollow - http://www.bloodaxeboats.co.uk
Andy P
foiling Int Moth GBR3467
Freedom 21 Codling
|
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 26 Sep 11 at 3:06pm
Originally posted by Brass
There's no doubt that R could have made 'more of an effort to bear away'.
The question is, why should anyone think she was obliged to make 'more of an effort'?
|
My question is should boats EXPECT other boats to take APPROPIATE action. I still hold that if R had taken the appropiate action this collision would not have happened.... Does the tacking boat have to assume that the other boat(s) will NOT take appropite action.
-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
|
Posted By: ob1
Date Posted: 26 Sep 11 at 3:21pm
Originally posted by Scooby_simon
Originally posted by Brass
There's no doubt that R could have made 'more of an effort to bear away'.
The question is, why should anyone think she was obliged to make 'more of an effort'?
|
My question is should boats EXPECT other boats to take APPROPIATE action. I still hold that if R had taken the appropiate action this collision would not have happened.... Does the tacking boat have to assume that the other boat(s) will NOT take appropite action. |
Simon, I hear your question (and your pain) which I will leave to others to answer But it can't be a sensible requirement of the rules to have to even begin to guess what boats might do if we assume they will not take appropiate action. e.g., (and just to illustrate the argument) would we have to assume and allow for the option of deliberate ramming?
|
Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 26 Sep 11 at 3:46pm
Originally posted by Scooby_simon
Does the tacking boat have to assume that the other boat(s) will NOT take appropite action. |
The tacking boat has to assume that if they break a rule the right of way boat may not succeed in taking sufficient avoiding action in time to avoid a collision.
|
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 26 Sep 11 at 4:17pm
Originally posted by JimC
Originally posted by Scooby_simon
Does the tacking boat have to assume that the other boat(s) will NOT take appropite action. |
The tacking boat has to assume that if they break a rule the right of way boat may not succeed in taking sufficient avoiding action in time to avoid a collision. |
But IF R in this case had taken avoiding action correctly (and thus no collision) then A would not hve been DSQ. So; to take this further with with some examples..... 1, A tacks and sails away; R does not change heading; we KNOW nowt here. 2, A tacks, is sailing on correct heading(completed tack), R takes NO avoiding action once A ROW boat; collision, R DSQ. 3, A tacks, R collides; nowhere for R to go; A DSQ. My assumption is NOW that as A you cannot assume that R will take APPROPIATE action, and thus you cannot tack on the same "lane" as a following boat as you cannot assume they will take any avoiding action........ True????
-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
|
Posted By: I luv Wight
Date Posted: 26 Sep 11 at 4:34pm
Originally posted by Scooby_simon
But IF R in this case had taken avoiding action correctly (and thus no collision) then A would not hve been DSQ. |
But A would still get a penalty / DSQ for tacking too close.
-------------
" rel="nofollow -
http://www.bloodaxeboats.co.uk" rel="nofollow - http://www.bloodaxeboats.co.uk
Andy P
foiling Int Moth GBR3467
Freedom 21 Codling
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 26 Sep 11 at 4:47pm
|
If you tack onto starboard right in front of someone, then surely the onus is on you to ensure there is no collision? The boat behind doesn't know you are going to tack, and even if you tell them, they don't have to start avoiding you till the tack is completed. That is all pretty straight forward. I'm pretty sure thinking time is allowed for in all this, which, at the speed these boats are going at, is rather further than it is in my Lightning.
As far as I can see, if you tacked so close that a rushed crap bearaway is enough to make the difference between colliding and not, then you've tacked too close.
-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
Posted By: Scooby_simon
Date Posted: 26 Sep 11 at 4:48pm
Originally posted by I luv Wight
Originally posted by Scooby_simon
But IF R in this case had taken avoiding action correctly (and thus no collision) then A would not hve been DSQ. |
But A would still get a penalty / DSQ for tacking too close.
|
Why? they have completed their tack; are now on Stbd and thus R needs to avoid the Stbd boat; once A has completed her tack, R becomes burdended......
-------------
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 26 Sep 11 at 5:14pm
Originally posted by Scooby_simon
Originally posted by I luv Wight
Originally posted by Scooby_simon
But IF R in this case had taken avoiding action correctly (and thus no collision) then A would not hve been DSQ. |
But A would still get a penalty / DSQ for tacking too close.
|
Why? they have completed their tack; are now on Stbd and thus R needs to avoid the Stbd boat; once A has completed her tack, R becomes burdended......
|
According to the beginning of this thread, R had started avoiding action before A had completed her tack, so whether the bearaway was crap or not, A had tacked too close.
-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 26 Sep 11 at 6:08pm
Scooby Simon- the days are long gone when a collision was needed to prove that a rule had been broken. Once A passed beyong head to wind she was required to sail in such a way that R had noneed to take avoiding action. Once R needed to take avoiding action A had broken rule 13.
Once A had reached a close hauled course she became ROW boat and was required to give R the space needed, in the existing conditions, to manoeuvre promptly in a seamanlike way so that A would not need to take avoiding action. At that moment (not before) A did not meet this requirement. A broke rule 15.
In both these instances A is DSQ, even if there was no contact. If you want a simple guideline - if you oblige another boat to do an emergency manouevre to avoid you, you have almost certainly broken a rule.
The only debate is whether R could have done more to to avoid a collision. Having initially borne away when A broke rule 13, it is questionable whether any seamanlike manoeuvre could have avoided contact when A broke rule 15.
Gordon
-------------
Gordon
|
Posted By: craiggo
Date Posted: 26 Sep 11 at 6:58pm
Gordon,
You are of course right, A should be disqualified, but surely so should R. While R attempted to avoid the collision they chose the wrong way to avoid it and as a result a collision occured. The argument is therefore, did R do all that was possible to avoid the collision. I would argue Scooby-simons point that, they had opportunity to avoid by 1. tacking or 2. bearing away by blowing the main and leaving the jib on. In bearing away in the way they did, they put themselves into the position of causing te crash and therefore should also be scored as DSQ.
|
Posted By: Andymac
Date Posted: 26 Sep 11 at 7:25pm
Originally posted by craiggo
Gordon,
You are of course right, A should be disqualified, but surely so should R. While R attempted to avoid the collision they chose the wrong way to avoid it and as a result a collision occured. The argument is therefore, did R do all that was possible to avoid the collision. I would argue Scooby-simons point that, they had opportunity to avoid by 1. tacking or 2. bearing away by blowing the main and leaving the jib on. In bearing away in the way they did, they put themselves into the position of causing te crash and therefore should also be scored as DSQ. |
I would guess that having made the initial bearaway, R was preparing to duck A's stern and then tack immediately. The second attempt to bearaway by R's helmsman was under far greater pressure and a split second decision (which was the opposite action to which the trimmers were geared up to do). This was done without the coordinated effort of the trimmers. Can anyone really blame R for a less than perfect manouvere in such a circumstance. Can anyone here claim to never making a mistake in a high pressure situation? I somehow doubt it. On that basis I suggest that R's second (attempt) bearaway when it became clear that A had stalled was reasonable. The term 'reasonable' is an entirely subjective matter, and one I feel we will never all agree on. Unless anyone is suggesting that R deliberately caused an avoidable crash, I can't see any more mileage in criticising R's actions.
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 26 Sep 11 at 7:59pm
I agree with andymac
Gordon
-------------
Gordon
|
Posted By: Brass
Date Posted: 27 Sep 11 at 6:45am
|
Here's another jury decision about right of way and rule 14.
http://www.sailinganarchy.com/fringe/2011/200ktack.pdf - http://www.sailinganarchy.com/fringe/2011/200ktack.pdf
The moral is, if you are keep clear boat, you must keep clear and not expect rule 14 to save you from your own mistakes.
|
Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 27 Sep 11 at 7:43am
|
I have not read through this thread completely nor watch the video but if A was ROW boat and decided to tack then rule 16.2 applies (Right of way boat changing course must ensure a keep clear boat does not have to alter course if they were already keeping clear).
I believe the rules also state that you are not required to anticiapte that another boat is going to break the rules until it is clear that they are, in this case it would appear it was too late for sufficient avoiding action to be taken. As has been pointed out a similar situation occured later on in the racing and different action was taken and no collision occured.
-------------
Paul
----------------------
D-Zero GBR 74
|
Posted By: gordon
Date Posted: 27 Sep 11 at 7:58am
Jeffers,
A was only clear ahead ROW boat until she passed beyond head to wind. Until she did so she was subject to rule 16.ONE, in that for any change of course she must give R room to keep clear. Once A passed beyond head to wind she became a keep clear boat (rule 13)
Rule 16.2 only applies to boats on opposite tacks when the port tack boat is keeping clear by passing astern. In this incident once a passed beyond head to wind until she reached a close hauled course she was keep clear boat (rule 13). As ROW boat R had no obligation to keep clear of A so 16.2 does not apply. Once A reaches a close hauled course she acquires right of way but must give room to R to keep clear (rule 15). Only when A has given room, and only if:
- R was then keeping clear by passing astern of A;
and;
- A subsequently changed course
would rule 16.2 apply.
Gordon
-------------
Gordon
|
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 27 Sep 11 at 8:44am
It seems to me that the leeward boat is pinned on port tack despite being a long way ahead.
These boats are fast in a straight line but lumber through tacks.
The leeward boat presumably could not pinch up to the windward boat's track, so they are stuck on port unless they risk a collision.
Maybe they could have borne off a little to give themselves space to tack instead of trying to get up to the mark?
Maybe the chop slowed the boat through the tack more than they expected, that is a foul piece of water at some states of the tide.
Maybe crashes are part of the circus, it's probably all rigged like wrestling used to be I suspect!
Lucky no one got hurt.
|
Posted By: Rupert
Date Posted: 27 Sep 11 at 5:10pm
Love to see Big Daddy V's Giant Haystacks match racing in AC45's!
-------------
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
|
Posted By: RS400atC
Date Posted: 29 Sep 11 at 5:19pm
Originally posted by Rupert
Love to see Big Daddy V's Giant Haystacks match racing in AC45's! |
Those guys knew a bit about showmanship, and most importantly, timing!
|
Posted By: Stuart O
Date Posted: 16 Oct 11 at 9:19am
|
Well it appears Rothschild likes to push the Port Starboard and has now hole Emirates
|
|