Extreme 40 crash decision

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.... 

Port and starboard, surely, if it was deemed they had time to avoid. I'm not convinced they did.

Has anybody got any quarrel with the event sequence and timings posted by Quagers in Post 2?

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.

Edited by Quagers - 11 Aug 11 at 3:12pm

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.