2017 Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

Two questions for ocean racers:

In such an ocean race - as opposed to the windward leg of a round the buoys race - what are the odds that lee bowing could be sustainec for long and would be able to generate a lead of 26 minutes anyway?


Given that WO's lee-bowing attempt was done when and where it was - in view of cameras in contrast to some few hours later - what are the odds that the helmsman chose to do it to show (to the owner of WO? To prosoective employers?) just to demonstrate that he (the helm) was an aggressive player worthy of being hired?

If that's what he was up to, ooooops! But it looked to me like he was going to safely pass ahead of Comanche right up until about a second before he tacked so I wonder if it honestly looked to him like was going to be able to cross in front of Comanche as well. Immediately after arriving in Hobart, the skipper of WO11 was quoted as saying that he was very confident the protest would be denied because the rules are different than in the America's Cup. Since Spitthill on Comanche was an AC skipper, I wonder if that was intended as a slight to him? Seems like a LOT of hubris on WO11 skippers part and especially so since he so obviously caused Comanche to alter their course and 2 turns done immediately would have made it all go away but he was so confident he was right and would win the protest he didn't bother. Bet he won't do that again!

[TheThunderbird]

I am no expert
Yet, Comanche is disturbed? YES
IS Comanche FORCED to close in the wind (which it does, it seems). As far as l see, No.

I don't suggest that they have to hit on WO to prove right, but... Well, on transom, why not?

As the WO owner l would not go against my man on wheel

Truth is, so much ego at sea...

[TheThunderbird]

Comanche is steady on
WO can try to pass it
Maybe (rules say what??) it has no right to tack in front of it, at a lower speed, thus being an intended obstacle

Imo, WO has water to pass across, as to my poor video

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by TheThunderbird

I don't suggest that they have to hit on WO to prove right, but... Well, on transom, why not?

As the WO owner l would not go against my man on wheel

Truth is, so much ego at sea...

Allowing Comanche to continue on and hit WO11 would mean the possibility of damaging 2 multi-million dollar sailboats and possibly causing yourself to have to withdraw from the race with a broken bowsprit or similar damage, wasting your own time as well as your whole crews time and ending any chance you had of winning the race. They were right to come up into the wind to avoid a collision. It's not intuitive to me that one hour was the proper penalty but I'm very far from being a qualified judge of these things. The part I can't believe is that WO11 didn't just do a couple of 360's and get right back into the race with nothing to worry about.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by TheThunderbird

I am no expert


I don't suggest that they have to hit on WO to prove right, but... Well, on transom, why not?
.

Risk damaging the bowsprit on Comanche, at the start of a race that was going to be a reach?

The skipper on WO made two serious blunders, tacking directly in front of Comanche, then choosing not to do a 720.
IMO, the penalty was appropriate.

[Jim Cate]

I have not read the sailing instructions, but from the committees decision statement, the penalty that was placed came directly from those instructions, and was not an arbitrary amount that they decided upon.

As to the idea of Comanche "allowing" the collision to occur, at the speeds involved, destruction of one or both boats and serious injury to crew were possible, heavy damage quite likely. It would have been a very foolish decision to carry on without luffing up.

Jim

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

I have not read the sailing instructions, but from the committees decision statement, the penalty that was placed came directly from those instructions, and was not an arbitrary amount that they decided upon.

I've just read reports of the Chairman's statement and the SIs.

It was an arbitrary amount that they agreed on. The relevant section just says:

22.1 A boat which is found after a protest hearing to have infringed a rule of Part 2 of the RRS after the Preparatory Signal and prior to the boat clearing the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y), shall receive a time penalty of not less than 5 minutes added to the boat’s elapsed time

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by StuM

I've just read reports of the Chairman's statement and the SIs.

It was an arbitrary amount that they agreed on. The relevant section just says:

22.1 A boat which is found after a protest hearing to have infringed a rule of Part 2 of the RRS after the Preparatory Signal and prior to the boat clearing the relevant seamark (Mark Z/ Mark Y), shall receive a time penalty of not less than 5 minutes added to the boat’s elapsed time

Thanks for that, Stu. Makes one wonder how they did determine the penalty. Could have been 25 minutes or 27 minutes, each with a different outcome. Hell of a responsibility placed upon them... not a position I'd like to be in for sure.

But the failure to do the penalty turns is the crucial mistake IMO.

I had to admire Ms Oatley's statement as being truly sportsmanlike, while Cooney's seemed kinda self serving.

Jim

[Argyle38]

I think they wanted to make the penalty to be clearly enough to cause WO to drop a position. Otherwise there is no reason for any competitor to ever do their turns in a distance race. They will just cheat all they want knowing that a few minutes here or there will be all they are penalized.

Also, if you foul someone and they THINK they have to alter course to avoid hitting you, then that is a foul. They don't have to prove that they would have hit you. Close to a hit is good enough. Only in cases where it's obvious that the other guy is way too far from hitting you (but he still does avoidance maneuvers, while screaming protest, etc.) will a protest get tossed. Often this needs a 3rd party to verify. In other words, if you are in a position where you could be fouling someone, in a tie, you lose.

I don't know if this is in the RRS or not, but it is certainly in the "interpretations" of past rulings that gets published, whatever it's called.

[StuM]

I'm assuming that the determined penalty was made greater than the finishing time difference on the basis that if it were less, then it would not have penalised WOII and they would have got away with their actions. An hour is a nice round number that affected the position of the two boats involved, but probably won't affect any other boats relative positions.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Argyle38

I don't know if this is in the RRS or not, but it is certainly in the "interpretations" of past rulings that gets published, whatever it's called.

I think you are referring to "The Case Book".

Case Book : Case & Call | Documents & Rules | ISAF | World Sailing | Official Website

It makes for very interesting reading if you are a racer

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

.......
But the failure to do the penalty turns is the crucial mistake IMO.

.......

Jim

Originally Posted by Argyle38

I think they wanted to make the penalty to be clearly enough to cause WO to drop a position. Otherwise there is no reason for any competitor to ever do their turns in a distance race. They will just cheat all they want knowing that a few minutes here or there will be all they are penalized.


.......

Originally Posted by StuM

I'm assuming that the determined penalty was made greater than the finishing time difference on the basis that if it were less, then it would not have penalised WOII and they would have got away with their actions. An hour is a nice round number that affected the position of the two boats involved, but probably won't affect any other boats relative positions.

These are the crucial aspects IMO and FWIW, I agree with the outcome

[TheThunderbird]

I saw a better video. There is a clear damage to Comanche which has to avoid collision..

It all helps placing these 2 boats, and Endeavour, as the most well known boats all around.

Anyway, it is not the crossing of WO11 which penalizes the other boat, but the intentional (!) decision to tack on his face, stomping at a lower speed, and thus creating not only an Impediment, but potential danger too.

This is the key, because crossing was possible, turning was not..

[Argyle38]

Originally Posted by StuM

I think you are referring to "The Case Book".

Case Book : Case & Call | Documents & Rules | ISAF | World Sailing | Official Website

It makes for very interesting reading if you are a racer

Yes, that's it. It is interesting. You can often get more insight by reading these than the actual rules.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

Two questions for ocean racers:

In such an ocean race - as opposed to the windward leg of a round the buoys race - what are the odds that lee bowing could be sustainec for long and would be able to generate a lead of 26 minutes anyway?


Given that WO's lee-bowing attempt was done when and where it was - in view of cameras in contrast to some few hours later - what are the odds that the helmsman chose to do it to show (to the owner of WO? To prosoective employers?) just to demonstrate that he (the helm) was an aggressive player worthy of being hired?

Richo doesn't need to worry about his employment.

This all could have been avoided if they'd done their 720. They chose to risk it and paid the price. If they'd done it they would be cheering their race record and line honours. It's a fair outcome.