International 14 Worlds

Golden Spray · Originally posted by Chris 249

"I have now
read the DS report and (not wishing to quote) but Barker says that the
boat in front was 100m away and so they felt they would not catch them
(and so improve their placing in that way), so the only option was to
go and attack the boat behind to improve their position."

But is that right? I thought that even after slowing down Irwin etc,
they still ended up gaining on the fleet. So they had other options to
perform well.

Re "Now just consider this :

 Last race.

1, One boat in front of you who you have to catch and pass to improve your chances in a regatta.  

2, One boat behind you that if you push back even more can improve your position

Which boat do you attack ? 

1, you
have to catch, do you have a boat speed advantage ? (probaly not), have
you tactical options (limited, last beat and about 100m in front,
enough distance ahead for a close cover from above to make it difficult
to catch up)"

For a start, Simon, your facts are wrong. According to DS and the jury
Barker did NOT have to catch one boat...he merely had to stop it
improving from 12th to 9th.

So he had options. You can go left (tide is changing and will help that
side), get past them and slam on them; that puts them one boat further
back for a start even before you drive them back. 

If they don't cover you to the left, you may well pass them (perhaps
they may have done so here if they hadn''t spent their time slowing
Irwin). If they DO cover you, great. Time your tacks so that if they
cover you, they  have to tack in someone else's bad wind. Time
your tacks so that they have to tack when they are in lulls. Remember
their skipper has already been in hospital this regatta and if you tack
and tack and tack, you may exhaust him. Because you are not trying to
get past....you're just trying to slow him down so he does not gain 3
places.

And are you saying that you CANNOT get past a boat 100 yards ahead? Of
course you can, it's done all the time in match racing and that's when
the boat ahead has fewer obstacles. I know Laser champs who have lost
races when the guy 100m  behind (who went on to win the Soling
match racing worlds) got them to tack at the wrong time when they close
covered. Hell, I think the technique is  detailed in Elvstrom, and
Connor. There are plenty of examples of boats 100 yards ahead being
caught up the last beat - much less people who have helped reduce the
chances of a boat gaining 3 places.

Re "2, Boat behind you can go back to and guarantee you can do something."

Something, yes...guarantees no, sometimes a good sailor in fast boats
can sneak out of cover quickly. And if they don;t get out, can you sail
them back 8m or so, so boats about a mile back up the course catch up
in 9m of sailing? Can you tell me of another time when a boat has
slowed another down to that extent? I've suffered the attentions of the
world's 3rd best match racing team almost all to myself (I was the only
reasonable boat in a scratch team) and they did not slow me down that
much, and I'm nowhere near as good as Irwin and Perry.

"They decided
sometime up the last beat that they would not catch the boat infront
and so went back to attack AUS.  It sounds to me like the IJ/PC ended
up using a bit of 20/20 hindsite."

Soooo...what you're saying is that the Poms did NOT decide up the last
beat that they could not catch the boat in front, so they went back.
But isn't that exactly what Barker said they actually did do, in the
Daily Sail?

In the DS interview, Barker AGREES that "sometime up the last beat that they would not catch the boat infront
and so went back to attack AUS. ". That's what HE said he did.....but when the jury say the same thing, you say they are using hindsight. Is that logical? 

Have you seen the transcripts from the protest? How do you know that
Barker didn't tell the committee that's what happened? He told Daily
Sail that's what happened!

" IMO this is an invalid
statement within the facts found, this is an opinion.  Fact found
should only contain facts. "

Well, in that case  tell ISAF, the juries, the rulemakers,
everyone else that they are wrong. And don't protest anyone on
port/starboard. The state of mind of the port tacker is, under the
current rules, a vital matter in such cases. Don't try to protest the
guy who rams someone at full speed before the prep gun and sinks them
when all the sunken boat needed was to finish....maybe the sinkee
really did just make a mistake. ...Don't disqualify the Formula 40
skipper (Grundfos Pumps was the boat IIRC) who rammed a competitor and
then hopped into his rubber ducky and used it to ram the competitor
after the race....hey, maybe he was going over to congratulate them in
the first instance and going over to apologise in the second, and he
got it wrong both times. It sounds highly unlikely, but if you cannot
look at his state of mind then you shouldn't penalise him. 

Even in murder trials (as in basically all criminal matters) state of mind is vital. 

Re "I think
somewere above says that there was approx 9 minutes of the race left to
run.  The AUS boat was slowed by 3 minutes in 9.   Add a capsize or 2,
a collision/foul and a couple of turns and surely you can find another
5 minutes.  How long did Ben slow Robert at the olly's trying to do ONE
tack....."

I was watching Ben and Robert, live. I've raced against them and been
coverd by Blackburn who was 3rd in that event so is no slouch....Ben
didn't slow Robert down anywhere NEAR 9 minutes IIRC and it was over
much, much more than one tack. He took the entire beat. It was great
sailing, no-one ever hassled Ben, none of us watching (I was in a group
including a 2 time Olympian and the dad of another competitor) ever had
anything bad to say about Ben - because it was obvious that he was only
doing what he did to help HIMSELF. 

What you say about capsizing does not sound correct to me, there is
very little clearing up and recovery to be done in such a situation.
And how stooppid do you think these world-class 14ers are? They are not
going to capsize one or two times and foul someone in such a situation.
And as far as "cleaning up"...see this description from the 14's
history....During
the Trials to determine the best combination of buoyancy and automatic bailing,
Golden Spray (658) was fitted with two experimental transom scuppers of
about 7sq.in. With full permitted buoyancy and two suction bailers, the boat
could be capsized, pulled upright, and planing again in a little over a minute
— the Committee of that time thought this was a little bit too swift, but today
14's are completely self draining, draining while planing has reached its
logical conclusion.

That was capsizing and "planing again in a little over a minute" and it
was in 1955. Look at the 14s and see how much they've improved and
changed in that 50 years, and then try to say it would normally take
twice as long to recover.

Maybe we should just change the rules....to something like this.

1) Follow the rules and abide by the jury decision and show good sportsmanship in doing so.

2) If the jury disqualifies a British boat, rule 1 does not apply. 

Hell, the bias in this matter is obvious; not in NZ, but in Y & Y
where the creator of the first thread called the result a 'stitch up"
before many facts were in. The absence of many facts didn't prevent minds being made up.

The reaction to the jury's decision is about as unsporting as.......as
Shane Warne's antics, and you can't get much lower than that.

Stefan, re "In the DS report Barker does say they deliberately drove AUS 631 left."

OK, on the one hand we have a competitor, on the other hand a jury. Why
is a competitor's explanation of why he should not have been
disqualified thought to be more trustworthy than the jury's report??

" I agree the DS report isn't particularly
satisfactory but it is the only place I've seen when Barker gets his
say."

Barker got his say in the protest room. So did any witnesses he wanted, and other witnesses. The jury found against him.

Irwin and Perry have had NO place to be seen to have their say, outside of the protest room. 

 How can you balance Barker's case against Irwins, when you have not heard Irwin's??

We've only heard a one-sided story from Barker - why should it get more
credence than the decision of those who have heard both sides (the
jury)? Why should it get more credence than the (so far untold) story
of Irwin?

One story has been found believable, the other has not. Why not go with the one that has been believed by an impartial body?

Edited by Chris 249