Rossiter Pintail Mortagne sur Gironde, near Bordeaux |
![]() |
Laser 28 - Excellent example of this great design Hamble le rice |
![]() |
List classes of boat for sale |
protesting as a witness |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <12 |
Author | ||
Brass ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 24 Mar 08 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1151 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted: 28 Mar 21 at 9:53pm |
|
No, see my reference to Case 50 above. I think if C gives good evidence about distances and angles, then the protest committee can infer breach of rule 10, and it's up to A to bring evidence to defeat that. |
||
![]() |
||
Mozzy ![]() Far too distracted from work ![]() Joined: 21 Apr 20 Online Status: Offline Posts: 209 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I know you are more the expert on this, but case 50 is a different situation. And it states "reasonable apprehension of contact on S's part". How can C possibly give any evidence that there was reasonable apprehension of contact on behalf of B? Now in case 50 that is determined as it's the starboard boat protesting and they say they had to change course to avoid a collision. But I would still say that there is no evidence that A can give as to whether the change of course was to avoid collision, or just Bs course. This would get ludicrous. Port and Starboard boats are on collision course all the times, and often a starboard boat tacks. Sometime 20-30 meters before the boat would have collided. Can a third party protest this also? Sound silly. So I'd say just that a boat changed course is no evidence they were avoiding collision. And rule 50 talks about apprehension of collision, and for that the only proper evidence is B saying so themselves.
|
||
![]() |
||
JimC ![]() Really should get out more ![]() ![]() Joined: 17 May 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 6661 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I suppose if there was evidence of repeated and increasingly agitated hails from Starboard and a sharp last second course change I could be convinced a RRS10 breach had occurred, especially if third party were in a position to see the course change.
From the POV of friendly competition though if Starboard wasn't at least providing support as a witness I think I'd be very reluctant to penalise. |
||
![]() |
||
Scooby_simon ![]() Really should get out more ![]() Joined: 02 Apr 04 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 2415 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Agreed.....
Summary as I would see it before opening arguments…. “Boat A on port crosses in front of Boat B on starboard but
Boat B alters course to duck A and continues; there was no collision and no
hail(s). “ We have 4 distinct possible protests, assuming the protest
is accepted as valid. 1, C protests; Neither A or B attend 2, C and A attend 3, C and B attend 4, C, A and B attend
In protests 2,3 and 4 we will get some version of what happened,
and I’d suggest some sort of decision can be made. It was either a P/S and
someone needs a DSQ or it was a tactical cross and no action. How would a PC resolve protest No 1. 1, Boat A on Port 2, Boat B on Stbd 3, A and B on collision course 4, B altered course to go behind A 5, No hails 6, No turns / penalty taken.
I suppose we (As Ctte) might ask: A, was the movements of B’s / tiller / mainsheet actions smooth
and measured or were they jerky and rushed?
B, was there any tactical advantage to the left / right side
of the course? Anything else? Edited by Scooby_simon - 29 Mar 21 at 11:45am |
||
Wanna learn to Ski - PM me..
|
||
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <12 |
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 |