Dinghy development: Flying Fifteen Worlds

Print Page | Close Window

Flying Fifteen Worlds

Printed From: Yachts and Yachting Online
Category: Dinghy classes
Forum Name: Dinghy development
Forum Discription: The latest moves in the dinghy market
URL: http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12682
Printed Date: 06 Jul 25 at 3:24pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.665y - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Flying Fifteen Worlds

Posted By: rich96
Subject: Flying Fifteen Worlds
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 12:18pm

Sounds like an eventful last race

Dow e know exactly what happened between the top two ?

Replies:

Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 1:09pm

Luffing incident on the first run it seems.

However it was not decided in the protest room as even with a 4th in the final race they would still be 2 points behind the winners.

-------------
Paul
----------------------
D-Zero GBR 74

Posted By: rich96
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 1:36pm

Yes - I read that report too. More interested in exactly what happened (if anyone knows ?)

Also I think the scoring would have given the Jerwoods the title very comfortably without the DSQ - so it was totally critical

Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 2:00pm

I don't know what happened but does anybody think the current rules make deciding who was at fault much more complicated? Old (pre '96?) rule, hail "windward boat keep clear" until responding hail "mast abeam" the leeward boat is clearly in the right, after the second hail the windward boat is probably in the right if contact occurs (okay, I've sat on the odd protest committee back in the day and I know it's never quite that simple). Now it's anybodies guess whether the ROW leeward boat has luffed too quickly and failed to give the windward boat 'room to keep clear' ore some such.....

Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 4:13pm

No. Absolutely not.

Posted By: jeffers
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 4:57pm

Originally posted by rich96

Yes - I read that report too. More interested in exactly what happened (if anyone knows ?)

Also I think the scoring would have given the Jerwoods the title very comfortably without the DSQ - so it was totally critical

Not sure why the DSQ was counted, must have been less than 20...so yes they would have taken the title sorry (Friday afternioon)

-------------
Paul
----------------------
D-Zero GBR 74

Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 5:23pm

The DSQ must have been the discard even though it wasn't bracketed in the results (the 20th was instead) but the total came to 38 (exactly the sum of races 1-6) while the DSQ was shown as 58, correct as there were 57 entries (DSQ=last+1).

As you say, if the 4th in the last race had counted they would have been on 22 points for a comfortable victory. Unless, of course the incident hadn't happened in the first place and then who knows, Goacher and Harper did turns as a consequence of the incident so finished well down the fleet in that race but to beat the Jerwoods' 22 points they would have had to finish 8th or better (which looks quite likely if they hadn't done turns).

Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 6:47pm

Pure guess: the Jerwoods luffed Goacher who collided with them and duly did turns but protested the Jerwoods under 14A?

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 7:48pm

Originally posted by NickM

Pure guess: the Jerwoods luffed Goacher who collided with them and duly did turns but protested the Jerwoods under 14A?

According to the report there was a hole in one boat so it seems likely that 44.1b would apply and doing turns wouldn't have been enough: any boat that was found to have broken a rule would be looking at a DSQ even if they had done a 720.

Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 9:09pm

The hole was in the Jerwoods' boat so, if that's the case surely they must have been protested under rule 14? Either way the PC decided that Goacher's actions did not warrant a DSQ.

Just re-read that last post, so what you're saying JimC is that Goacher was wasting his time doing turns?....... Maybe he wasn't aware that there was damage?

Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 9:41pm

Jim. "44.1((b) if the boat caused injury or serious damage or, despite taking a penalty, gained a significant advantage in the race or series by her breach her penalty shall be to retire."

Is a "small hole" serious damage? Finishing 20th did not give Mr G any advantage over Jerwood who finished 4th. Maybe the Protest Committee decided that the luff was so sharp as to give Goacher no time to keep clear? Anyway this is all pure speculation.

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 9:53pm

Case 19 - Interpretation of the term ‘damage’.
Question
Is there a special meaning of ‘damage’ in the racing rules?
Answer
No. It is not possible to define ‘damage’ comprehensively, but one current English dictionary says ‘harm . . . impairing the value or usefulness of something.’

This definition suggests questions to consider. Examples are:
 Was the current market value of any part of the boat, or of the boat as a whole, diminished?
 Was any item of the boat or her equipment made less functional?

Don't think there's really going to be much doubt that a boat with a hole in is less functional and has a lowered market value.

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 10:06pm

However apparently the Jury disagreed... I suppose because they've split the incident in two and found GBR 4021 didn't break a rule in the second half.

Decision of International Jury
Protest Number:5
Regatta Lexus of Hawke's Bay 21st Flying Fifteen World Championship
Date of Hearing: 3rd March 2017
Date of Incident:3rd March 2017
Race Number:7
Boat Protesting GBR 4021
Boat(s) Protested:AUS 3986
Representatives:Protestor: Steve Goacher
Protestee: Nick Jerwood
Witnesses: Charles Apthorp (GBR 4004); Konrad Weaver (GBR 3092); Alisdair Daines (jury)
Validity/Procedural:Valid
Facts Found:
1.AUS 3986 and GBR 4021 were sailing downwind on starboard tack, overlapped, with AUS 3986 to leeward.
2.AUS 3986 luffed toward GBR 4021. GBR luffed but the courses continued to converge.
3.When they were very close AUS 3986 luffed a second time. GBR 4021 put the tiller down.
4.There was contact between the port quarter of GBR 4021 and the starboard forward gunnel of AUS 3986, causing damage to AUS 3986.
5.GBR 4021 took a two-turn-penalty.

Conclusions/Rules:
1.Initially, GBR 4021 to windward failed to keep clear of AUS 3986 as required by rule 11.2. Subsequently, AUS 3986, the right of way boat, changed her course and failed to give GBR 4021 room to keep clear as required by rule 16.1.

Decision:AUS 3986 is DSQ under rule 16.1. GBR broke rule 11 but she is not to be penalised because she took a two-turn penalty.

Protest Committee:Peter Scheuerl (chair), John Bullot, Alisdair Daines, Michele Governale, Peter Johnson
Chairman’s Signature:
Date and Time Decision Advised: 3rd March 2017 at 16:12 3rd March 2017 at 16:12

http://ff15worlds2017.juryboard.org/hearingschedule/index.php" rel="nofollow - http://ff15worlds2017.juryboard.org/hearingschedule/index.php

Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 10:33pm

I'm surprised by the facts found which are not very clear. I'll paraphrase them to expose the issue:

2. AUS 3986 luffed. GBR 4021 responded by luffing but not enough that it prevented convergence.

3. The boats became very close (so arguably GBR 4021 was not keeping clear at that stage). Then AUS 3986 luffed a second time (does that mean she had returned to her original course? Or that she increased the rate of luff when the boats were 'very close'). GBR 4021 tried to luff to keep clear by putting the helm down.

That question is really pertinent: if she had returned to her original course she had given GBR 4021 an opportunity to keep clear by re-opening the gap. But if it was an increase on the luff then I can see why the 16.1 call was made, especially if they were already converging. The use of 'luffed a second time' is imprecise!

But I think the decision probably hinges on the location of the damage. Because of course when AUS 3986 luffed her bow swung to windward. When GBR 4021 luffed it's likely that her stern swung to leeward. So in all probability she really couldn't keep clear.

At a guess I reckon the Aussie boat went for the luff but was actually being rolled. The second or increased luff was a last desperate attempt.

It would be really harsh to lob GBR under rule 14 given the location of the contact and damage.

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 10:59pm

No, if I were going to DSQ GBR it would be under 44.1b. It could be argued that if GBR had kept clear in the first place the second luff would not have occurred and so they bore a share of responsibility for an incident in which there was serious damage. I suspect it all would have depended on the nuances of what was heard from all parties.

But the moral of the story is "don't play bumper boats", and I really don't have a problem with that. AUS lost the champs when they initiated a collision causing damage, and they were always going to be DSQ for that: doing turns wouldn't have helped.

Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 11:12pm

That makes sense, so in what way could GBR have been 'not keeping clear' surely AUS would have had to have changed course to avoid a collision for that to be demonstrable and it appears that they actually luffed a second time? It will be interesting when the footage, if there is any, gets on youtube.

It's a long time since I could claim to have a thorough knowledge of the RRS but I'm trying to learn as I'm racing again after many years. Rules 14, 15 and 16.1 in particular seems to be nothing more than a 'get out of jail free' card for a give way boat.

Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 11:16pm

Originally posted by JimC

No, if I were going to DSQ GBR it would be under 44.1b. It could be argued that if GBR had kept clear in the first place the second luff would not have occurred and so they bore a share of responsibility for an incident in which there was serious damage. I suspect it all would have depended on the nuances of what was heard from all parties.

But the moral of the story is "don't play bumper boats", and I really don't have a problem with that. AUS lost the champs when they initiated a collision causing damage, and they were always going to be DSQ for that: doing turns wouldn't have helped.

I meant 44.1 - had just been thinking about 14.

Posted By: sargesail
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 11:17pm

Originally posted by Sam.Spoons

That makes sense, so in what way could GBR have been 'not keeping clear' surely AUS would have had to have changed course to avoid a collision for that to be demonstrable and it appears that they actually luffed a second time? It will be interesting when the footage, if there is any, gets on youtube.

If the Aus boat couldn't make an alteration of course in either direction (or continue with the current course) without there being contact then GBR hasn't kept clear.

Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 11:22pm

Okay, thanks, that makes sense.

Posted By: JimC
Date Posted: 03 Mar 17 at 11:34pm

Originally posted by Sam.Spoons

Rules 14, 15 and 16.1 in particular seems to be nothing more than a 'get out of jail free' card for a give way boat.

There's not really a get out gaol free. To (over?)simplify, if Give way breaks a rule she is penalised - as in this incident where she took a penalty. However ROW boat may get penalised as well (again as in this example). Roughly speaking the only time GW doesn't get penalised is if she is keeping clear perfectly satisfactorily and ROW does something so late and so unexpectedly that its impossible for GW to respond and keep clear. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Posted By: Sam.Spoons
Date Posted: 04 Mar 17 at 8:48am

Thanks JC I get that but it still seems much less clear cut to me. This is probably for the rules forum though so I'll post there.