New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: SailGP Final Aarus
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

SailGP Final Aarus

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
MikeBz View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 04
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 531
Post Options Post Options   Quote MikeBz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 21 at 3:52pm
^^^ especially when the exoneration is to drop behind the boat you have fouled and they then sail very slowly (due to bad luck or bad decisions or even deliberately to delay the penalty to as late in the race as possible giving little or no chance for the penalised boat to recover) for almost a lap - Mozzy covers this in his video and reiterates that as in the Cup itself the penalty exoneration system badly needs a rethink.

Edited by MikeBz - 24 Aug 21 at 3:52pm
Back to Top
sargesail View Drop Down
Really should get out more
Really should get out more
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 06
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1405
Post Options Post Options   Quote sargesail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 21 at 5:19pm
Originally posted by JimC

The trouble with ditching the entire rule book is that you've ditched the entire rule book. So none of the case book applies. Nevertheless maybe the principles do.
Case 50 says "When a protest committee finds that in a port-starboard incident S did not change course and that there was not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on the part of S, it should dismiss her protest. When the committee finds that S did change course and that there was reasonable doubt that P could have crossed ahead of S if S had not changed course, then P should be disqualified. "
So if you consider the general principle might apply then do we end up with "was there a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on the part of JPN?" Especially when considering the time available for a decision and the closing speed.
I submit that its possible to consider that tacking into that gap at that speed would have been a risky manouver, and that risky manouvers at that sort of closing speed should not be attempted in those boats. If that was the belief of the umpires then I suggest their call, even though marginal was, if not definitively correct, at least defensible.



The problem is that the case law is for the Protest Room.

This is umpired racing. Conventionally that is driven by a Call Book. The changes to the rules for Sail GP mean that no extant Call Book would apply. We can see the Sail GP rules. What we cannot see is whether there is a Call Book and what is in it if it exists.

But for me it would be a very odd call to have constructed to find in Japan’s favour here.

Normally call books are based upon the last point of certainty. In this case GB is crossing and therefore keeping clear. There is a gap….such that JPN can BEGIN its mark rounding manoeuvre without affecting GB’s ability to give room. And GB, if necessary could luff to create more room.

So either the Call Book is flawed or the Umpire messed up or both!

Edited by sargesail - 24 Aug 21 at 5:25pm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.665y
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz
Change your personal settings, or read our privacy policy