2017 Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race

[StuM]

Originally Posted by 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..

I don't think they had any intention of crossing. The tack was a common racing tactic, known as a "lee bow". It's just that it was poorly executed. If they had tacked a couple of seconds sooner, they would have been praised for a skillful tactical move.

https://www.sailingworld.com/how-to/essential-leebow

Watch Out When You

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by StuM

I don't think they had any intention of crossing. The tack was a common racing tactic, known as a "lee bow". It's just that it was poorly executed. If they had tacked a couple of seconds sooner, they would have been praised for a skillful tactical move.

https://www.sailingworld.com/how-to/essential-leebow

Watch Out When You

And have kept their line honours...

Or done the 720 and most likely have the line honours...

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by StuM

I don't think they had any intention of crossing. The tack was a common racing tactic, known as a "lee bow". It's just that it was poorly executed. If they had tacked a couple of seconds sooner, they would have been praised for a skillful tactical move.

https://www.sailingworld.com/how-to/essential-leebow

Watch Out When You

I think that everyone who's ever raced any sort of sailboat is familiar with the lee bow maneuver but IMHO it didn't look to me like that's what he intended. From the video I saw and heard it sounded like they intended to pass in front and somehow I got the impression that the crew of WO11 was a little surprised when the skipper called for a tack. Also, I find it hard to believe that a skipper with so much experience helming racing sailboats could screw it up that badly if it was a deliberate maneuver that he'd intended all along. It looked to me like they intended to pass in front but suddenly realized they might not quite make it so did the only thing left to do and that's why they got too close. Just my impression, and I'd love to find out for sure. I'm sure the skipper must have been asked the question by now what his intentions were, to cross or not. Has anyone seen his answer?

[Bean Counter]

The sensible thing to do was the penalty turn, in a race that long it is improbable that the time to do the turns would affect the final line honors result. In any event the better sailors would seem to be those that won on handicap in the same division, even the older Wild Oats did better than both of them

[donradcliffe]

In the lead up to the incident, it appeared that WO would cross. However, as time goes on it gets clear that they will not. Spithill could have caused that by heading up, bringing new rules to bear, but the Stan Honey testimony showed that he held a constant course. The other cause of the change in cross/don't cross could have been that C was accelerating. C was pretty slow coming out of her tack in the light air and sloppy seas, but maybe she got a puff.

I agree with the Protest Committee, WO needed to be put down a place.

[Sealife74]

WO was never going to cross , a bad move on its behalf.
Comanche did the right thing by luffing up a little to avoid hitting.
If you hit someone intentionally you are in the wrong as well, the rules state this.
The correct decision was made!

[downunder]

WO had Ian Murray on board as tactician with Match racing experience/Americas Cup experience so I imagine he had a fair input into WO's tactics.

[daletournier]

It was obviously a just and correct decision based on the opinions of THE more informed than me (not a racer). In saying that, did the infringement cost Commanche that much time that they would of won if it hadn't occurred?

If the answer is no, it would of been refreshing to see Commanche not make the protest in a show of great sportsmanship, choosing not to win by default. Yep WO screwed up but the faster boat on the day won the race. Just MHO.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by daletournier

It was obviously a just and correct decision based on the opinions of THE more informed than me (not a racer). In saying that, did the infringement cost Commanche that much time that they would of won if it hadn't occurred?

If the answer is no, it would of been refreshing to see Commanche not make the protest in a show of great sportsmanship, choosing not to win by default. Yep WO screwed up but the faster boat on the day won the race. Just MHO.

The proper sporting thing was for WO to make its penalty turns, they had that option, but thumbed their nose

[Jim Cate]

Dale, I agree that your proposition would have been world class sportsmanship. however, at the level of competition involved, and the egos and dollars that are invested, small chance of that happening! I did think that ms Oatley's comments after the decision were quite handsome.

At any rate, the new "record" that Comanche now holds is tainted IMO, an opinion that I suspect is shared by many sailors.

I had another look at the kinda disjointed video that started this thread, and it is a pretty obvious foul... due, I think, to a botched tack, either in timing or execution. Dunno why they (WO) didn't see that and do the turns, but then I wasn't there!

Jim

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Dale, I agree that your proposition would have been world class sportsmanship. however, at the level of competition involved, and the egos and dollars that are invested, small chance of that happening! I did think that ms Oatley's comments after the decision were quite handsome.

At any rate, the new "record" that Comanche now holds is tainted IMO, an opinion that I suspect is shared by many sailors.

I had another look at the kinda disjointed video that started this thread, and it is a pretty obvious foul... due, I think, to a botched tack, either in timing or execution. Dunno why they (WO) didn't see that and do the turns, but then I wasn't there!

Jim

Yep, for sure. I suppose abit idealistic on my behalf, it would of been great to see "that world class" sportsmanship. The skipper of Commanche would have looked like a real winner.

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by daletournier

It was obviously a just and correct decision based on the opinions of THE more informed than me (not a racer). In saying that, did the infringement cost Commanche that much time that they would of won if it hadn't occurred?

If the answer is no, it would of been refreshing to see Commanche not make the protest in a show of great sportsmanship, choosing not to win by default. Yep WO screwed up but the faster boat on the day won the race. Just MHO.

A jolly good question. The point of which is that Comanche reached the mouth of the Derwent River first, ahead of Wild Oats XI. But the finish line is at least 1 nautical mile up the Derwent. And in the light and fluky air of the river, WOXI overtook Comanche and finished 26 minutes before C.

Rather than saying WO screwed up, I think you say that either Mark Richards (the helm of WOXI) screwed up or his sail trimmers were slow at the tack (the video I saw was not good enough to discriminate).

For any money bags looking for a race skipper, I would recommend Jimmy Spithill (helm of C) and not Richards (helm of WOXI). On the video, as soon as the helm of C had reacted, you can hear Spithill calling for guidance on the layline so he can get C performing again.

Question is: was the lightning strike to WOXI, when it was tied up alongside C just before the race, the sign of divine disapproval?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Factor

The proper sporting thing was for WO to make its penalty turns, they had that option, but thumbed their nose

It's spelled out in the RRoS:

Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are
expected to follow and enforce. A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty, which may be to retire.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by daletournier

It was obviously a just and correct decision based on the opinions of THE more informed than me (not a racer). In saying that, did the infringement cost Commanche that much time that they would of won if it hadn't occurred?

.

The penalty isn't applied to redress the time lost. The penalty is intended to discourage the breaking of the rules. WO created a potentially dangerous situation. As has been said before, a five minute penalty would have effectively been no penalty, and in future races skippers would ignore the rules.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by daletournier

Yep, for sure. I suppose abit idealistic on my behalf, it would of been great to see "that world class" sportsmanship. The skipper of Commanche would have looked like a real winner.

LOL! A real winner who didn't win....