New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Wasting time
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Wasting time
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Rupert View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 11 Aug 04
Location: Whitefriars sc
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8956 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Rupert Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Wasting time
    Posted: 31 Jul 13 at 1:59pm
Aren't we going back here to the idea that if in winning you lose the respect of the other sailors, you aren't a winner at all? Why on earth would you want to win by f**king up everybody else's regatta?
Firefly 2324, Puffin 229, Minisail 3446 Mirror 70686
Back to Top
Andymac View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Apr 07
Location: Derbyshire
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 852 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Andymac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 13 at 1:04pm
Originally posted by sargesail

Until then we're just - see title of thread.

LOL
Back to Top
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1459 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 13 at 10:51pm
Exactly.  So until this actually occurs and goes to appeal Case 78 governs.  Until then we're just - see title of thread.
Back to Top
Andymac View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Apr 07
Location: Derbyshire
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 852 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Andymac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 13 at 6:34pm
Originally posted by Brass

Originally posted by Andymac

As far as 'questionable' goes, it should be for the National authority to decide whether or not a 'violation was clearly established', and ultimately for the ISAF to endorse it.
No, it's for a protest committee hearing a valid protest to decide whether rule 2 has been broken.
 
The only way a National authority gets involved is on Appeals, or by a Prescription to the RRS.
 
ISAF doesn't 'endorse' anything.  ISAF has said all it's going to say in Rule 2, Judges Manual, Case 34 and Case 78.

Quite, I maintain that it should follow the normal protest/appeals procedures... and by natural progression end up at the National authority to make a definitive decision.

If the ISAF had nothing else to say on a rule, then what is the point of the Case numbers which follow from time to time? what would you have said prior to Case 34 and Case 78?
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 13 at 3:04pm
Not really, if he did that, and finished at 15:59 the Race Officer would probably have no hesitation in displaying the Warning Signal at 16:00.
 
Maybe if the first boat finished at 15:45 and the points leader tooled around until 16:01:  in that case it would make perfect sense and no rule would be broken.
Back to Top
sprayblond View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 21 Nov 11
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sprayblond Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 13 at 1:49pm
Yes, but if the SI says "no warning signal after 16:00", .. boats failing to finish within 20 minutes are DNF, and the first boat finishes at 15:38.. Then it makes sense for the guy in the lead to sail back and forth until 15:58. 
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 13 at 1:09pm
Originally posted by laser193713

Originally posted by jeffers

Do not forget that most events also have a 'stragglers' rule in their SI's which permits the PRO to finish boats that are well behind the fleet.
 
Most events eh? Are you sure about that?
 
As I said previously there's a standard paragraph in Appendix L
 
15.2 Boats failing to finish within _____ after the first boat sails the course and finishes will be scored Did Not Finish without a hearing. This changes rules 35, A4 and A5.
 
Most race officers would use a SI like that when they intend to run multiple short races.
Back to Top
RS400atC View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Dec 08
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3011 		Post Options Post Options   Quote RS400atC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 13 at 12:56pm
Originally posted by Andymac

....
 
... 
The 'Gamesmanship' displayed in the 2012 Olympic Badminton qualifying rounds didn't go down well... even though similar scenarios had been played out in international events before then. Not sure whether the teams were ejected from the competition under Badminton rules or under the doctrine of the Olympic ethos.
.....
I think that is a good example of rubbish event management, failing to predict the consequences of the way the tournament is run.
 
People will be moaning about chess players sacrificing pawns next.
Pawns have right too!
Back to Top
Brass View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 24 Mar 08
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 13 at 12:56pm
Originally posted by Andymac

As far as 'questionable' goes, it should be for the National authority to decide whether or not a 'violation was clearly established', and ultimately for the ISAF to endorse it.
No, it's for a protest committee hearing a valid protest to decide whether rule 2 has been broken.
 
The only way a National authority gets involved is on Appeals, or by a Prescription to the RRS.
 
ISAF doesn't 'endorse' anything.  ISAF has said all it's going to say in Rule 2, Judges Manual, Case 34 and Case 78.
Back to Top
Andymac View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more


Joined: 04 Apr 07
Location: Derbyshire
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 852 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Andymac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 13 at 12:40pm
Originally posted by Brass

Originally posted by sprayblond

I copied this from RYA regarding rule 2: I would say gamesmanship is broken. If you by drawing out time gain an advantage, you do not settle the competition in a fair way, i.e. by sailing as well as you can in as many races as possible. 
----------------
A1: The recognised principles of sportsmanship 
and fair play include the following ...
• Respect forthe rules
Breaches of this principle include: ...
  • Gamesmanship, defined as behaviour of questionable fairness but not strictly illegal tactics
Originally posted by Peaky

... questionable tactics (and they have been found to be questionable, because at least one person has questioned them), ...
 
Ok, Spraybloond, good get, and those racing under the RYA may feel obliged to follow this.
 
However, I think this is more a product of the RYA Marketing Department's Code of Niceness than careful consideration of the rules and how the game is played.  I note that the RYA was unable to get the agreement of its Racing Rules experts to put this into an Appeal, so that it would have some authority.
 
I think reference to 'questionable tactics that break no rule' is inconsistent with important aspects of rule 2 as follows:
  1. Rule 2 is an harsh rule:  the penalty for breaking it is a non-excludable disqualification:  one might expect that breaches of rule 2 would be 'greater than' and 'better proved' than breaches of ordinary rules.
  2. The requirement is that breach of the 'recognised principles' must be 'clearly established'.  That is, the rule itself expresses a higher standard of proof than for any other rule, except rule 69.  Arguably the requirement is 'comfortable satisfaction', as for rule 69, or maybe something in between ordinary balance of probabilities and comfortable satisfaction.
  3. If the threshold of the alleged breach is that an action is no more than 'questionable', how can it proved that a violation was 'clearly established'?

I note that 'gamesmanship' of all kinds is recognised feature of all sports, be it nothing more than confident swagger around the boat park.  I think the RYA is attempting to set the bar far to high.

At the very least I would be inclined to qualify the provision by something like:

  1. other than conduct within the ambit of Case 78; and
  2. calculated to gain an unfair advantage

The 'Gamesmanship' displayed in the 2012 Olympic Badminton qualifying rounds didn't go down well... even though similar scenarios had been played out in international events before then. Not sure whether the teams were ejected from the competition under Badminton rules or under the doctrine of the Olympic ethos.

As far as 'questionable' goes, it should be for the National authority to decide whether or not a 'violation was clearly established', and ultimately for the ISAF to endorse it.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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