| Laser 28 - Excellent example of this great design Hamble le rice |
 |
| Rossiter Pintail Mortagne sur Gironde, near Bordeaux |
 |
List classes of boat for sale |
International 14 Worlds |
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 6> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Delicious Digg Facebook Furl Google MySpace Newsvine reddit StumbleUpon Translate Twitter Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|
Scooby_simon 
Really should get out more 
Joined: 02 Apr 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 2415 |
 Post Options
 Quote Reply
 Topic: International 14 WorldsPosted: 14 Mar 05 at 12:16pm |
|
Very good point...
I wonder if anyone has pointed this out ? |
||
|
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
|
||
 |
||
|
Guest
Newbie 
Joined: 21 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 Mar 05 at 10:57am |
|
Yep - well that is the opinion of the IJ & you but perhaps there are others that think this was a bit of a "stretch". If it was team racing which is of couse banned why wern't Morrison/Rhodes peanalised for their role - the word team states that there was more than one party involved in this transgression? Rick
|
||
|
||
|
Contender443
Really should get out more
Joined: 01 Oct 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 1211 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 Mar 05 at 9:09pm |
|
|
Rick the international jury thought there was enough evidence to say it was team racing. That is why they got penalised. From what has been said on this forum they were guilty of team racing and they have no appeal - end of story. |
||
|
Bonnie Lass Contender 1764
|
||
|
||
|
Guest
Newbie
Joined: 21 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 Mar 05 at 8:33pm |
|
Was it? wasn't it just Richardson/Barker match racing the Aussies down - where is the proof that it was anything more than that? Rick |
||
|
||
|
Stefan Lloyd
Really should get out more
Joined: 03 Aug 04 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1599 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Mar 05 at 12:59pm |
|
|
Granted, but the allegation in the case we are talking about was "Works Teams Racing" and the IJ concluded (rightly or not) that it happened. Originally both GBR boats were protested. I am therefore puzzled why you are saying this case is not about team racing. |
||
|
||
|
Guest
Newbie
Joined: 21 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Mar 05 at 12:51pm |
|
|
If boat A nails boat B then almost certainly some 3rd party (C) will benefit. This is what happened to Percy and the Aussies. The question is when does the actions of A to B constitute team racing in favour of C. If A can argue that their actions were to their own benefit then all is OK. Seems to me in this case as A failed to achieve their own objectives so the IJ assumed then their actions were for the benefit of C. This was based on the outcome and not on what could have been considered a resonable tactic at the time. Also they threw in some rubbish about dinners and team orders to really dirty the names of those involved. Had the right paid and the Aussies finished >26th Then they would have justified their actions and the results been very different. I don't like the fact that the IJ used the outcome to build their position rather than assessing the actions based on the positions at the time the covering started. Rick |
||
|
||
|
Kiwi Spy
Newbie
Joined: 23 Feb 05 Online Status: Offline Posts: 20 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Mar 05 at 9:35am |
|
I can assure you that there are heaps of reasons why a boat might try and sail another down the fleet other than "Teams Racing" - which is really "Works Teams Racing" and which doesn't really exist outside of UK. Most of the time it is the reverse situation where two competitors will fight each other hammer and tong in some regatta because unknown to the rest of the fleet it is an Olympic selection regatta for that country. KS |
||
|
||
|
Stefan Lloyd
Really should get out more
Joined: 03 Aug 04 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1599 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 Mar 05 at 8:14am |
|
|
Yes and why might you want to sail down a boat you cannot beat? Answer: team racing. |
||
|
||
|
Kiwi Spy
Newbie
Joined: 23 Feb 05 Online Status: Offline Posts: 20 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 Feb 05 at 11:33pm |
|
|
The point aboit Percy protesting is that he can lodge a protest - the
IJ may not uphold it. However I am assuming that he did not protest and
therefore accepted the situation as being within the rules. If you
apply the tests extrapolated from the ISAF Cases, then Loof did improve
his series score, and this was his intention.
This is not about team racing, it is about the rights (and curtailment of rights) of a boat to continue to hinder another boat who she has no actual or realistic chance of beating on series points. There are two situations, if the hindering boat breaks a rule of Part 2 (and maybe damages the other boat) - then it is clear that the other boat is entitled to redress. However if the hindering boat keeps clear but continues to hinder the other boat, beyond the point where her series score is not or cannot be improved, the Case 78 comes into play as does 34. The hindered boat may protest, the IJ/PC may uphold that protest or may dismiss. If the protest is upheld the hindered boat may be entitled to redress, which the IJ/PC may award, or may decide that there were other factors involved in her placing and leave the scores to stand, or grant an amount of redress which does not have the effect of altering the hindered boats placing in the regatta, but which may improve her score. Look at another situation - in an Olympic qualifier. Boat A has qualified, her rival B has not yet qualified and has to finish in say the top ten of the final race to do so. Is A entitled to sail B off he course using tactics that will not improve A's series score, but will be highly detrimental to B, and under her countries grant system will mean that she will not get funding that year, and is effectively out of the Olympics and this is to A's advantage as B is expected to be close rival of A's in the Olympic regatta proper. My interpretaion of the ISAF Cases and RRS is that B is entitled to some protection against this form of tactic, is entitled to protest and if the IJ agreed with her could be entitled to redress. KS |
||
|
||
|
sargethesailor
Newbie
Joined: 21 Feb 05 Online Status: Offline Posts: 12 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 Feb 05 at 10:53pm |
|
|
Kiwi Spy I have to disagree having been both boat A and boat B in this situation - it is not at all easy to get back! But in both the Loof and I14 situation both boats were racing against a discard - not looking to achieve a result. I do not believe Percy could have protested - Loof had proved by performance as you point out,that he was benefitting himself. There was no allegation of team-racing - so no breach of RRS2 so no chance of redress. Turn that onit's head and say the right was favoured in the I14 case - they finish say 21st. Are they team racing? The IJs logic is weak because they ignore the what if factor, and the fact that the Aussies were in 18th at the leeward mark. Will be interesting to see how this develops. I hope we haven't heard the last of it. |
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 6> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy