Extreme 40 crash decision

So you would have DSQ'd both Art and Roth?

That doesn't exonerate Art though? You said yourself that Roth should have started avoiding when Art starts to tack, if that was the only way to avoid collision then Art has tacked too close because Roth shouldn't need to start to take action until the tacking boat has reached close hauled.

Quite agree Jim - even happens in Fireflies, and they tack on a sixpence.

Originally posted by JimC Damn guys: how clear a case of tacking in someone's water do you need?

I posted the link as for me the debate is not about tacking in water, but the fact that it looked like an avoidable collision. The protest outcome seems to encourage collision as a way to demonstrate you were in the right. This is bad news for big boat sailing where collisions run the risk of injury and potentially death.

Not knowing Extreme 40 there appears to be two scenarios:

1. Extreme 40s routinely take that long to tack. In this case the video makes it look like R was trying to make a point of the being tacked on and was pushing their luck to demonstrate there was a collision course and that actually resulted in a collision. I would have hoped that racing rules and protest committees would encourage the situation where R would know they were on collision course at the start of the situation, they could have taken avoiding action earlier, protested and got A disqualified.

2. A fluffed their tack. In this case A started a move in good faith. Once stalled there was nothing they could do as they were dead in the water. All the ability to control the situation was with Rothschild and it looked like they were not doing everything possible to avoid a collision. You would hope that again the RRS and protest committees would encourage people to do everything possible to avoid a collision. It certainly would have been obvious if R had to dump the main, that they were taking avoiding action and hence won a protest.

With either of the scenarios R does not look good, but protest committee seem to exonerate them on all accounts. That is what I don't feel comfortable with.

Originally posted by rb_stretch the fact that it looked like an avoidable collision. The protest outcome seems to encourage collision as a way to demonstrate you were in the right.

I really don't know how you get there. Of course it was an avoidable collision: *THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TACKED*. You don't tack if by doing so you create a collision situation.

[added] The DSQ for EG seems pretty harsh as they started to take avoiding action while they still had right of way by the rules... I'm not sure what else they could have done from the video. Trying to luff across the bows of an accelerating boat is not a great idea, nor is a crash tack in something that big. It seems like quite a big call to suggest that attempting the duck to avoid was so much the wrong thing to do that it warrants a DSQ.

Edited by JimC - 13 Aug 11 at 12:21pm