Mr. Clean
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Shoot me an email if you want the raw video to introduce new evidence. Petey might have some stuff from another angle.
-Clean
dash34
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Based on what your boat did in this incident, you should have been tossed. Video evidence is pretty inconclusive shot from that angle due to foreshortening. In general, if you choose to cross in that situation (after Red’s luff it looks like the boats came within a couple of feet) the onus is on you to prove that you didn’t foul. In the absence of witnesses to support you, you don’t have much chance.
However, I don’t see how Red’s protest was considered valid. No flag was flown within a reasonable time. The video does show that.
Dyanmio
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Agreed with dash34.
Despite luffing and then tacking, Red comes SUPER close. That argues that without the luff / tack, they would have hit.
So no blood in the water, but crossing on port tack against starboard boats like that… I think fair enough to get the boot.
That said, Red needs to get the protest flag sorted. For racing at this level, it seems clear that they didn’t signal in a timely way.
pornstar
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
invalid protest, findings thereafter totally unimportant. You didn’t do anything wrong.
If they had protested you, you shoulda done turns to be safe rather than sorry; as it looks frigging close - but since they didn’t protest you properly…..non issue.
You was robbed mate.
CJH
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
U wuz robbed - APPEAL!!!!!!!
Jesse Andrews
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
I couldn’t disagree more with Dash and Dyanmio. That video clearly shows that Red was trying to get to you and were not successful. Obviously if they had held their course they would have been further away from hitting you. Either way it shows you crossed cleanly and they tacked after you crossed. There is nothing worse than people who exaggerate or lie in the protest room. There should be a harsh penalty for doing this but instead half the time they win the protest. This incident reminds me of a “Hollywood” Where a port tack boat is clearing and the Starboard tacker alters course anyway to get a call from an ump that is following with no depth perception of the incident. I hope the video footage works out for you because it clearly shows you crossing even though Red heads up at your stern and CLEARLY misses! I didn’t look for the flag in the vid but that may be the clincher in this as well. Good luck.
Rod Stewart
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
it looks like Red was hunting. They tried to luff the guy on their windward side and used the situation of your cross to an unfair advantage. I don’t think they even saw you until after the cross..
bora
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Jesse is right on
“hollywood” all the way
shanghaisailor (SA Name)
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Tricky one this.
I would say the video is inconclusive in itself but there a number of factors that do point to either an invalid protest or a number of other rule infractions.
By luffing instead of bearing away the starboard tack boat naturally closed the distance between them and the port tacker. Indeed they do seem to be coming up before they tacked therefore denying the port tack the ability to keep clear.
If this was the case the starboard tack boat breaches Rule 16.1
Although the leeward starboard tacker had rights under rule 11 and potentially under 17 by sailing above her proper course. Of course this depnds how the overlapbetween these two boats occurred.
As leeward boat they had rights on the starboard tack windward boat under rule 11 and rule 19.2. When they sailed above close hauled however they potentially lost the rights under rule 19 depending how the overlap between the starboard tackers occurred. They then went on o tack which unless the windward boat had already decided to tack would have been potentially a breach of Rule 13.
Under rule 60.3 (a)2 should facts come out at a valid hearing the protest committee can protest the other boat.
Also in the video there does not appear to be any raised arms as would be required to “conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity”. Certainly before the boat sorted themselves out for the next tack when afterguards were likely to be eyeballing themselves would be a reasonable opportunity as after the second tack the protesting boat’s afterguard would be obscured from the protestee by the protestors sails.
This would be a clear breach of 61.1(a)
Of course on the other hand, the foreshortening effect and the relatively poor quality of YouTube streaming video may mean that the angles and distances were skewed. That said, there is certainly no clear arm raising visible.
I write this having in the past been president of protest committees, sat as assistant to an International Umpire with AC experience and been on the other side of the table also but I ask looking at it third hand.
If you are confident enough of your ground, Andrew and of US Sailing I would take it to appeal if the regatta NoR allows AND get a copy of Mr Clean’s raw video before you go.
Cheers
Shanghai Sailor
WTFDIK
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Looks to me like Red tacked because he couldn’t lay the line.
Miah
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
To me, only seeing the video, It was a clean cross. The fact that they were able to come up and still tack cleanly on your stern only proves that further.
Willie Crear
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Clearly, the port tack yacht cleared by about 2 feet, even though the starboard/leeward boat was tacking. Whether or not the tacking boat was also hunting depends on the tactical situation with the windward boat. For the port/starboard, there is clearly no foul, although the video is necessary to demonstrate that. One wonders if starboard/windward meant to tack, or was forced to by the leeward yacht?
b393capt
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
I wanted to believe the prior comments that Red was hunting, and had they not luffed they would have been further away making their choice to protest even more of a joke.
Seeing this video, I could easily believe instead:
1. Red’s helmsman believed the collision with the port tacker was assured, and choose to avoid collision by tacking even thought that would involve fouling the windward boat.
2. The deck crew didn’t notice the port tacker until moments before and was temporarily paralized, possibly with the thought of colliding with one boat or the other, and then only had seconds to perform two tacks in quick succession. Forgive them for not finding time to shake their fists at the port tacker or waive a protest flag before the camera panned away.
… as, I have been in situations where a port tacker passed in front of my boat double or tripple that distance (but still too close) and (a) a collision momentarily ** appeared ** to be assured, even though seconds later it would prove not to be the case (b) knew it was futile to steer the helm to duck the port tacker unless our trimmers could read the helmsman mind quickly enough to release the sheets (in big boats when that close you can’t just steer to duck the boat) (c) the helmsman choose instead to foul / risk a minor collision with the windward boat than a hard collision with the boat infront. He should get credit for making that manuver vs. ducking, as that manuver would get a quick change in heading without requiring the quick thinking of the trimmers (the video clearly showed at least the jib trimmer was slow to respond)
… and that my friends is not hunting, it’s survival instinct.
HHN92
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Uhh, I would think that if you were going to avoid a collision you would aim for the stern, as you would if you were on port ducking a stbd., not head-up pointing for someones beam. Double the fast that even in heading-up Red did not get to you and make contact.
Close, but no cigar.
Hope the video helps in the appeal, if it is allowed in.
b393capt
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Had the starboard tacker held his course, clearly there would have been no collision, but when it is this close you can’t fault the starboard tacker from choosing to avoid a collision by rounding up … therefore I vote that this was a foul and justice was served.
b393capt
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
HHN92 i disagree with you the starboard boat should have aimed for the stern instead of rounding up. Surely there is weather helm on the starboard tacker in this situation. Big boats just don’t have rudders large enough to quickly overcome this and get an appreciable heading change to port without a split second release of the sails by the trimmers … as opposed to turning to starboard the helmsman would have the weather helm and rudder working together to quickly turn to starboard, 10x faster than turning to port. On my own boat, in a similiar situation I felt I errored by attempt to turn to port, as my boat took over 15 seconds to respond (and only then because the sheets were eased) and by then not only did the port tacker get cleanly past, but now I was screwed because I couldn’t make the mark, and now I was on a collision course with a boat that had just rounded the mark.
b393capt
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
(It would have been ideal if I had realized we wouldn’t have collided with the port tacker) .. but in a situation not even as close as this one my entire crew and I believed we were going to hit can can’t be faulted for it.
The port tacker in our case wasn’t penalized because we thought it was so obvious they fouled us we didn’t need to dig up our protest flag from the locker … and when we realized they were not taking penalty turns it took us far to long to get our protest flag out of the locker (they were long gone).
beenthere
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
As the video shows, you can see Red squeezing early but their definitive move up was after Ninkasi’s transom had already gone by. All in all a bad situation, Red’s actions really throw them into a tailspin. They probably felt embarrassed by flailing so bad and wanted to pin it on Ninkasi. Some times you just have to take it on the chin and admit things didn’t go as planed!
Fact found “C” seems to be impossible.
Rob Koci
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
No question. You were miles ahead of Red. Anyone that says otherwise is just looking for a debate where none is deserved.
jelloshot
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Clean cross - close is ok. Not sure about those who say video is inconclusive. Aside from a helicopter view, how can you ask for more?
No way the crew didn’t see it coming - its a 32′ boat, not a dinghy, and the gap did not fully close despite turning into the Port boat. A one foot duck, though I don’t believe was necessary, would have been simpler but not provide the intended visual chaos.
Testimony that they came out of the tack overlapped is clearly not true. RED clearly went the for “drama” effect and it worked, without a protest flag no less.
Based on what I have read, clearly intentional misstatement of the facts by RED led the PC to an incorrect decision. A lousy way to prevail off the course. Don’t allow a desperate act to be rewarded - appeal on principle.
Sorta
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
no flag or hail, no protest.
IF they had actually done this, Ninkasi is so clearly ahead and would have been coomunicated as such by Red’s crew. I think Red were likely trying to shoot the line to get ahead of wward stbd tacker and completely messed that up. There should have been two protests here. I would love to hear from the protest committee on this one as they seem to have messed up too?!
BHH
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Looks to me like port tacker crossed cleanly.
But, that said, it was close, and if the stb tacker got surprised, they might have rounded up thinking that there was going to be a collision. Hard to tell if it was hunting, or just a momentary panic to avoid collision.
In this situation, I think the starboard tacker wins the protest…..as long as they got their flag up promptly. Thing about this type of protest is that it was so close to the finish that there is not enough time to react to a protest before the race has ended.
Gondy
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Crossed ahead, but way too close IMHO. Case 50 - Red could easily assert that they had a reasonable apprehension of collision and altered course to try and avoid. That’s the risk a port tack boat takes in these situations. But why they luffed… ?
An appeal would likely be unsuccessful. RRS 70.1 permits a party to a hearing to appeal a protest committee’s decision or its procedures, but **not** the facts found.
The facts found would have been that Red hailed protest and raised a flag at the first reasonable opportunity. Thus allowing the committee to declare it a valid protest.
You should have asked for a re-opening of the hearing under rule 66 on the basis that the protest committee may have made a significant error, or when significant new evidence becomes available within a reasonable time.
But this generally has be done within 24 hours.
Dewey
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Appeal! We have had two protests disallowed - one right away and the other on appeal because the flag was not thrown and the hail not made until 5-10 minutes after the fact.
Glitter In The Eye
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
If anyone thinks you are wrong clearly does not understand the rules. The committe should be thanked for their time but reminded to study. They tacked and instantly gives you vindication. They either have to duck you or hit you.
Det-Devo
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
b393capt souds like an old world guy. These are sport boats that turn on a dime. reaction on the helm is instant not 15 seconds. Back to the vid.. It was a close cross but it appeared that Red hunted and made it even closer. Good luck on appeal!
Rob Bowden
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Here’s my observations.
1)- Red was behind you and wanted to get ahead. Clearly they needed that as they were in contention for 1st.
2)- By heading up and forcing the boat on their hip to tack with them it blocked the view of the other boat to know how close the cross was. This makes their case stronger in the room as the other boat probably never saw you and they were forced by the leeward boat to “crash tack”.
3)- Red HAD to tack to make the line anyway. They MAY have been able to shoot the line at the last minute, but the way those boats stall so fast that would have been close.
4)- Was the crossing “too close for conditions”? You have two fast moving 32 ft boats within 2 feet of each other. That’s pretty close and the potential for significant damage is high. They could easily make a case for having to alter course.
5)- Red had to head up slowly to give the boat on their hip time to respond.
6)- In looking at the video I see that no finishing positions were changed by your cross, (not that it matters).
7)- The video clearly shows you were further away than what the Red crew testified to. However, at the speed those boats close he could easily claim when he first saw your bow he felt collision was imminent and they went into crash tack mode.
8)- The video clearly shows no effort being made by Red to throw a flag. There was too much talent on that boat for an excuse on that. The protest IMO was an afterthought.
Huh?
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
I find it odd that in order to avoid collision, Red drove up into the windward boat AND towards Ninkasi’s bow. Conventional wisdom states that in order to avoid a collision in a port/starboard situation, the boat giving way (whether they had the right of way in the first place is immaterial) would pass aft of the crossing boat. It’s like shooting a rifle….you miss a moving target by shooting behind it, not in front of it….
To make sense of what Red did and to reconcile it with the official filings of the jury, it would appear as if they were heading up (luffing) in order to slow their impact and avoid a straight T-Bone with Ninkasi.
What I would really like to know is how far Red’s bow was from your hull when they took action.
I think that arbitration hearings should be recorded, so that the jury can hear all of the possible versions of the account.
470
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
It doesn’t surprise me that Red’s story did not jive with the facts. Morgan Reeser was known for shady behaviour in the 470 class. The video is very clear. Red did not duck one little bit…..just the opposite, they hunted and failed.
Wacka Elvis
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
looks like Joe (RED) stuffed up his attempt to shoot the line - it was a tight cross from Ninkasi but a collision simply wasn’t on the cards.
Does unfortunately highlight the chances you take about going into the room - esp when on the give-way side of any situation… all about the witnesses!!!
Withheld afraid of the blastback!
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Great comments on the board here, but most are not based on the actual rules. There is no rule that states that a starboard boat must sail below a crossing port tacker. I believe you summed up your situation very well when you realized that:
a. the protesting boat was able to modify their story based on what they told the arbitrator.
b. once the proest was found to be ‘valid’ you were in for quite a tough fight.
c. Unfortunately, the facts found in the decision would be difficult to appeal. If I were King I would require the arbitrator to come into the jury room as a witness and give testimony on the information provided by the parties during arbitration. It is a common concern to have parties change their stories from the arbitration to the hearing. (Very sad)
As a side note: I have luffed to avoid a port tacker that ended up hitting me 4 feet from my stern. I couldn’t duck and my hope was to reduce the angle of collision (it was the only way out that I had at the time).
My take on the situation is:
1. Your best out was based on validity. Unfortunately, the protesting boat was able to convince the jury that they hailed and raised a flag “immediately” and at first reasonable opportunity. The video seems to dispute the flag (no reason it wasn’t up by the time they got to the finish line) but video is tough to introduce.
If it is a close cross, there is very little chance that the port boat can be exonerated unless there are witnesses.
It doesn’t matter that you did ‘cross’ cleanly (it appeared that you did cross cleanly), what matters is that the boat that had right of way felt like they had to alter course to avoid a collision. The power is really with the Strbd boat in this situation.
In some classes I have seen REALLY tight cross situations end up without an incident, then in other classes, a not so tight cross ended up in the jury room.
I respect the way you framed the issue and how you were not quick to berate the jury. It is unfortunate that a good regatta ends on this type of now. You are a world class sailor and have seen more than I have, however, as a Judge I have seen too many of these type of situations and there is little if anything that can be done. Had I been the boat you were crossing and I knew you made it cleanly, I would not have tried to protest (I have admired those who cross cleanly without me having to take action to avoid).
nroose
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Foreshortening would have made it look CLOSER, not farther away.
jeb
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Classic BS. Just like the ass that argues you don’t have room at the mark when clearly you do. He clearly hunted you down, but hey you got to expect that there are assholes that will do that, knowing they have all the rights and will likely win. Just part of the game and why I as helmsman will always take responsiblity from the tactician on a close cross. Lesson: you can close cross a good guy and he will let you go, but the asshole will always get you and there is not much you can do except miss the party and feel like shit for trusting in justice.
Crunch
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Poor seamanship on the part of Red. Heading up, rather than ducking the last inches of Ninkasi’s stern (eventhough they appear well clear) with a windward boat in close proximity is bad judgement that lead to expected mayhem. Looks like Red’s braintrust lost sight that yacht racing is a gentleman’s sport.
GASailing
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Plain and simple…. it sucks but its written Read dash34s comment at top “the onus is on you to prove that you didn’t foul. In the absence of witnesses to support you, you don’t have much chance” its happend to me too but in my instance I was even farther away. All the stbd tacker has to do is turn the helm and call foul. With regards to the flag…. Yes they should’ve flagged Stick with Karma
Bill
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
To me it looks like they hunted and missed. If they had held course it would not have been very close. I think tactically they were in a pickle and needed to tack to make the line and used you as a pick.
People that get caught lying in the room should get an un-sportsmanship penalty that bans them from going to the room.
Good luck in your appeal.
Tim Marvil
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Well, the video review is helpful. I think Red is in the wrong here. The cross was clean. I thought that their luff was more to shoot the line. If I was the windward boat to them I would have been pissed - they had the line and were forced to tack to avoid - but no mention of them here.
Even in the event of an immenient collision, why would they have luffed up, increasing the chances of collision? The duck would have been the better choice.
Michael Acquart
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
In this age of GPS it is possible that that these devices would help to determine by looking at course tracks. You should be able to tell if there was hunting or not. Also at premier events such as this one why not have the race committee have a video cam mounted on a gas powered radio controlled heicopter that is hovering above the finish line and the marks. This video would be considered as evidence. Frivolous protests would be thrown out and the protesters who make false protest would be known in the circuit and treated accordingly. This could even open up a new business revenue for someone who does remote control helicopters for fun but hates racing sailboats because of these types of protest. Lets look for solutions not blame.
Sailor Boy
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Michael- do you have a hamster that could video the finishes from the helicopter?
Grrr
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
AC I feel for you guys. Just for the record, During the event, Red (MR) also hailed protest to us for top mark incident. They were clearly overlaid we tacked clear ahead and never got close to us, they were very vocal on the matter. This one could quite easily come to a simmilar outcome.
Marc VS
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
You got screwed. Whether intentionally hunting, or just totally suprized and poor sailing, they were probably just trying to pin it on you for them fouling the winward boat. It’s amazing how stories can materialize in the protest room to cover their butts. Poor form by Red, my oppionion of Mr. Reeser is less. I dispise people like this that have a “win at all cost” attitude. It can ruin the sport at any level. I have left regattas with a similar bitter taste
Patrick
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Yooo Andrew, enjoying this thread.
One thing I am noticing in this discussion is the difference between what is right and what is reality.
What is right - From what I see, you guys were clearly crossing. Red is obligated as the right of way boat to either 1.) hold is course and avoid if needed or 2.) Alter, but give you room to stay clear. If anything, it would appear as if he started hunting at 39 seconds. The argument that he is trying to avoid by heading up seems invalid. Flat water, perfect conditions, just duck if you had to? If anything, I think Red made a BAD decision, and in the process fowled the guy on his hip, and then likely filed the protest to cover his ass. Doesn’t mean he had to follow through with it.
What is reality - It’s a pretty close port/starboard, and 9.9 times out of 10…without a witness, you are going to lose. Is it depressing that starboard tackers go into the room knowing they can stretch the truth and still come out on top, yes! But that’s what happens in self-policing sports. But good job calling him out, and posting the video. It’s all about karma!
Brett
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Red had one goal, to beat the weather boat. Stuff it or not, they used Ninkasi as an obstruction in order to tack too close from Starboard to Port and in an afterthought protested Ninkasi in order to keep the weather boat from Protesting them. Secondary benefit is that Ninkasi got flicked too, giving them two more points and setting back the competition. The best part of this whole thread is the comment about Karma. Good job on Ninkasi, regardless of the protest thanks to Anarchy the world knows the truth
dan
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Several of you wrote “port tacker crossed cleanly”.
Huh ? How do you all define “clean” … that there was no collision? That the vocal on the video said it was clean ?
If Red had not altered course .. then, I would agree it was “clean”. In that Red did alter course apparently in reaction to the port tacker … it WAS NOT “clean”.
I think any claim of “hunting” by red is unjustified.
I agree it’s an important part of the rules that the protest should be lodged at the first appropriate moment.
I agree there was injustice in that the information presented to the arbitrator was altered before given to the jury.
I agree the jury should be thanked for their work, and that their good work should stand.
Given the video evidence now available,
(1) any claim Red has of the port tacker being too close appears well justified
(2) the video is to short after the cross, it is unreasonable for the video to be the evidence that the protest wasn’t raised quick enough.
I don’t see any point in pursing this further.
Scott
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
That was the classic port-starboard foul. Even on good old Barnegat Bay you would have been tossed. The starboard tack boat did exactly what he should have done. If he had pulled off he would have accelerated. You had no business being there. God, the whole time I was watching I was holding my breath. And the fact that you were looking for a flag tells me you knew it was too close. It is also typical for the guilty party to head for the club and pretend the situation never happened.
John Pytlak AKA JRPytlak on SA
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
I was on the SA boat. From my point of view, Red was totally in the wrong! There was at least 4-6 feet to spare in your totally clear crossing. Their “coming up” looked like either A: hunting or some sort or B: a driver meltdown. I would lean more towards the first of those choices as to have a driver meltdown of that magnitude, the driver should be in the 105 class. On top of there not being a protestable offense, Red didn’t throw a flag till the boat to windward threw theirs. I’m sure Red knew that they were gonna get chucked by the protest to windward, so they may as well try to pin the protest on you guys. Hence the late flag. That’s just my guess on the flag tho. You need a credible witness at an appeals hearing, email me. I’m the voice you hear in the background of the video saying there shouldn’t be a protest and that you guys are all clear.
Spiceworld
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
There’s no anger like being mad at yourself…so let’s back this scenario up BEFORE the video began rolling. Somewhere between the bottom mark and the finish, all boats here made tactical decisions on which side of the course they wanted, and consequently which board they would be finishing on. Part of weighing that decision is realizing there is an inherent rights advantage if there should be a crossing, and that going right to get those rights and not having to tack or alter to avoid can thus be worth a small amount of distance. You chose to approach and cross on port and as a professional you should know the liabilities associated with it…so own it and be mad at yourself, not the other boat.
That said, I’m sorry this all happened to you as this does not address their not throwing a flag or hailing asap. Just as you need to own your earlier decision to cross on port and all the liabilities that come with it…Red needs to own their issues with flag protocol. Karma is in play on both sides of this case.
Olsonist
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Definitely a foul. Whether the flag was properly tossed or not is another question but evidently the jury agreed that it was.
“Red never bore away to to duck us” “Red could have ducked” Red doesn’t have to duck. They’re on starboard. Red doesn’t have to do anything until it is clear that contact is unavoidable. At that point blowing the main and ducking may not be possible. The mainsheet may have too much purchase to free and instead the boat would just accelerate. Luffing up would be the prudent choice.
Hunting? That wouldn’t make sense at all since he is trying to fetch the RC boat and footing would miss and pinching would be slow. Also, you’d need evidence from the leeward boat to prove this.
I think he did you a favor.
GreatRedShark
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
I have to wonder if we are all watch the same video ! All of the variance of opinion is pretty funny - what color is the sky in your world, dan ?
THe cross was close, but there is CLEARLY at least 2 feet between Red’s bow and Ninkasi’s transom AFTER red CLEARLY luffs up to make the situation as close as they could ! - That’s HUNTING - they are activly trying to prevent Ninkasi from keeping Clear ! - What, possibly could the Port tacker have done once they commit to the cross ? Starboard is obliged to hold course, and avoid contact if it appears imminent, not shoot above close-hauled in order to create the appearance of a foul. Mr. Reeser will bear watching closely at regattas in the future if this is his version of fair sailing.
Oh yeah, no flag, no foul - either, shouldn’t have been even heard, but the whole thing is bogus - you don’t luff up into somebody unless you are bow-to-bow and CLEARLY they are NOT.
mike
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
First off this is typical sailing garbage and an embarassment fit for the sport of figure skating!
You have to keep in mind that if a guy like morgan Reeser is the tactician on Red you can bet that a) he was perfectly aware they were there for a long time b) MR was aware that they were crossing but would be close c) he could use this port/starboard as an excuse to force the windward boat into a crash tack so he could at least finish ahead of them - as it was the W boat was going to sail him past the layline and leave him looking at thier transom as he crossed
There is no onus on S to duck vs luff to avoid a collision, he could have slowed for that matter. What he did was head up to make the crossing as precarious as possible - a hunt if you will. Still P crossed ahead and no collision occured, they clearly would have crossed clear if S had just held thier course. S may have hailed W for room to tack or may not have, never seemed to be discussed and is not of much interest to P.
By not either appealling or asking to re-open the original hearing with the new video evidence you are just facilitating this kind of BS by a guy who has been around long enough to know that he just scammed his way past 2 boats at the finish. Shame on Morgan and the skipper of Red, they should ask to withdraw from that race and appologize to all concerned. It’s a pathetic display of bad sportsmanship to do otherwise in the face of clear video proof.
Nick von der Wense
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
I have a totally different perspective to offer having called been the guy who has called tactics/crosses for a lot of 25-40 keelboats with pros on board.
Putting your team in this position is not acceptable. Tack or duck. You could have cleanly lee-bowed and beaten both.
Crossing by 3 feet is not keeping clear. In a dinghy it is a mile, in a 32 foot 200k sportboat you are keeping clear, but a little drama and suddenly you are standing in front of a jury with a bad story. A mouthy competitor will toss you . If your team is good NEVER be in that spot crossing by 3 feet. Other teams will use it against you.
dan
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
I was predisposed to find evidence of hunting, and just could not find it.
I really would like someone here to explain how there is evidence of hunting in the video. When did it start (I see written here two ideas, one was 45 seconds before the cross, the other is that it began when Red luffed) ? And .. if it started 45 seconds earlier would you say Red pointed or bore off too hunt ?
jelloshot
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
The 32 may be a quick boat but a quick dump of the main and tug on the stick and the boat will accelerate to a unavoidable collision? Get real.
MR is way too experienced to have a panic attack and call for push towards Port’s stern. Orchestrated effectively I suppose as final result, right or wrong, went his way.
Now, how about Elvstrom’s infamous quote about respect?
GreatRedShark
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
dan,
at 39 seconds in you can see water between Port-tacks transom and Starboard-tacks bow, in that saem frame you can see that Starboard is rotating to weather and her main is beginning to luff. At the very least she is trying to prevent Port from keeping clear - she is most certainly NOT trying to aviod contact by turning TOWARDS Ninkasi.
Red tried to tag Ninkasi and fell short. The she tacked. Red should be tossed.
WHL
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
It was close, and after pausing the video as positions got closer, it was clear that Red appeared to be hunting and had that in mind well before they tacked onto port. At this level of competition, close quarters racing is to be expected. This looks like just another one of those “starboard tacker stretches the truth” moves in order to make up for being fairly beaten by the port tacker.
pb
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
What’s interesting to me is that more than 50 folks can look at the same video and be absolutely convinced …. of totally opposite things. The video shows a clean crossing. The video shows a foul. Shows how tough a judges’ job can be.
The missing protest flag: that’s something else again. The protest should have been tossed.
scow
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
I trust the one with the jesuit education! The problem here it like Ronnie said in the ’80’s, “trust, but verify”. You needed the witness to win the protest. The tone of the summary above is the key to sportsmanship, ie that while you lost the protest, holding your head high with honesty and integrety it far more valuable than lowering yourself to their level. Stand tall AC. Life is one constant lesson.
peno
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
Nick Wense, I’m not sure how you can beat two boats that aren’t laying the finish with a lee bow five lengths from the finish.
At any rate, I’ll throw in my vote for clean cross and poor form from Red. M-32 is fast becoming the premier 30-40 foot fleet racing class in the world. I’ve always felt that a boat only owns the water they are in. Port or Starboard AC had a cross at the finish line and took it.
NewportStormer
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
I agree with Peno… those 2 boats (Red and Bitipi) are not making the finish, most likely due to Reeser’s poor choice to leebow Bitipi short of layline. Reeser uses this “opportunity” of a close (though clean, legal, legit) cross to force a tack to “avoid the collision” and recover from his poor decision earlier, and even gain another spot by DSQ’ing Ninkasi.
Reeser also uses the fact that his boat is visual obstacle for the Bitipi tactician to see Ninkasi until the come across Red’s bow. Another point of contention.
Though the class rules forbid videos being used in the protest, it doesn’t say videos cannot be used to appeal. If you have time and interest, it’s worth the appeal. Use the video. Your team would move up a place in the regatta and Argo would then tie Red (though Red wins on a tiebreaker).
Jug Dish
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
The only way that Red would be able to win a protest from the windward boat would be to prove that the only option to avoid a collision was to tack. Red would NOT have been with in her rights to tack regardless of wether she was fouled or not, assuming that there was the option to keep clear by ducking. In my opinion, If the boats were this close there would have been contact with both boats. Regardless, I think the windward boat is the boat that determined who got chucked. By siding with Red (and I assume) stating that the crossing was to close that they could not have ducked, they sealed the fate of Ninkasi. I believe one of two things happened 1) The windward boat did in fact think that Red would T-Bone Ninkasi without immediate action. or 2) Morgan Reeser paid their bar tab!
If you race long enough this thing is bound to happen to you sooner or later. There are Assholes in every sport self policing or not. Be glad that there is a overwhelming majority in our sport that would congratulate you on well executed cross, and that you are one of them.
Sailingfool
Comment on January 26th, 2009.
I agree 100% that Red went hunting. FWIW I often do mainsheet on a local PHRF sportboat, I would have eased the main as soon as the crossing boat appeared unless we agreed we were crossing clean behind - heading UP in a close cross offers nothing but a Tbone.
dan
Comment on January 27th, 2009.
Good explination … I’ll agree it’s hunting. I was kind of thrown off by the though that colliding with the boat windward of you is a form of hunting a port tacker … but now I get the whole strategy of trading up from a miss of the finish line for a 1st place finish at the expense of the port tacker.
Still, it was too close … the port tacker shouldn’t have cut it this close and risk the DSQ … far better to come in 3rd.
RHough
Comment on January 27th, 2009.
@ 35 sec S is starting to turn up. @ 36-37 sec the angle of heel is obvious … due to the action @ sec 34-35. Without the perspective of the driver on S, it looks like an “Oh shit” reaction as soon as the driver could see P.
Talk about a gentlemen’s sport?
Where was the proper lookout on S?
Why didn’t S hail P long before the cross?
Did P respond to the hail with ‘Hold your course’?
This is not good seamanship.
S should have known where P was, S should have been screaming ‘Starboard!’ and the second they reacted to P they should have screamed ‘Protest!’ and that would be the end of it.
Both boats were wrong. P more wrong than S.
Not getting tossed because the boat you fouled didn’t protest quickly enough would have been a hollow ‘victory’.
The PC did the right thing.
RiverRat
Comment on January 27th, 2009.
I dont protest its easier that way
red is playing with it very weak protest
b393capt
Comment on January 27th, 2009.
RHough + 1
b393capt (SA name)
Comment on January 27th, 2009.
Nick von der Wense +1
RHough +1
… did P hail S “Hold your course” ?
Mike
Comment on January 27th, 2009.
Andrew, any follow up from you on this situation? Just wondering, Mike.
Bill Ward
Comment on January 27th, 2009.
If Ninkasi tried to leebow in that situation it would most likely have led to a foul. Ninkasi would have tacked inside the zone, so if Red has to go above close hauled to avoid them, it’s a foul. A likely scenario given that Red is barely laying. The zone in the new rules is 3 boat lengths.
Jeff
Comment on January 27th, 2009.
looks like the cross was close but clear ahead. Red only protested to protect them selves from a protest from the windward boat. Was the video used in the protest?
peno
Comment on January 27th, 2009.
I’m not sure how proper lookouts and avoiding confrontation have become the topic of recent posts. The fact of the matter is that this is pro racing. There was no “oh shit” moment. Red made a calculated decision designed to pass boats. And it worked so far.
Jesse Andrews
Comment on January 27th, 2009.
What baffles me is that some people actually think a close crossing is a foul. In fact this is a foul on the Starboard boat for 1) altering above her proper course towards the crossing Port tacker 2) for tacking onto Port after the Port tacker cleanly crosses.
It is a clean cross if Starboard sails her proper course and does not have to alter course in order to avoid a collision. In this case Starboard makes it a closer cross by luffing up towards Port and Port still crosses Starboard with feet to spare. So maybe a close cross but no way a foul. These are all good sailors that know what’s up. Red got caught Red handed here and I’m sure they are embarrassed. They deserve all of this for not telling the truth in the room. In fact I agree with Bill that this deserves an un-sportsmanship penalty and a ban from going to the room. There is nothing worse then loosing a protest because the other party has a win at any cause attitude and lies in the room.
peno
Comment on January 27th, 2009.
Also, show me where in the rules a “hold your course” hail has any relevance. Unless I’m missing something in the most recent update, the only required (and therefore relevant) hails in fleet racing are “room to tack” and “you tack” when tacking at an obstruction.
Fat and Bald
Comment on January 27th, 2009.
The fact that there are any number of conflicting opinions is the sine qua non of tacking too close. Even if the cross was ‘clean’ by 5 feet, 4 feet, 3, feet, etc. the real question is at what distance given the state of wind and water would the cross have had a certain outcome to one or both helms ? If P was puckered up and wondering himself if he was going to make it, it was too close. If S thought there was a chance he could win a protest on the cross, it was too close.
Since we are not wired into P’s asshole to discover the state of pucker (maybe a better idea than the helicoptors) we should accept that the starboard advantage is a major one, that there will always be variation in the enforcement, and thus come to the conclusion that if you play with fire, sometimes you get burned.
Also regarding how soon you have to protest- I suggest that if the race ends within a few seconds of the event, that the time allowed for all sides to noodle it over should be extended from a mid-course encounter where the offending party needs to know right way in order to clear itself. Since the information about the race is much more complete anyway at the end of the race, there is more and better context for all parties to make a determination about how important a protest may or may not be to the outcome of the race or series, which is not information available mid-race.
The sea-lawyers here who want to win by an inch should find another sport- maybe curling or shuffleboard ?
Mike
Comment on January 27th, 2009.
this is why people continue to lie in protest hearings - they get away with it. Morgan Reeser and however else went in their and lied should be punished accordingly. It’s about time that the “Rodney King” effect is brought to bear on the sport of sailing. If you are worried that you might get caught in a lie by some video evidence after the fact well you might think twice about stretching the truth…
No one should think for a second that a guy with his expeience didn’t know what was going on during the manouvre and what the possible outcomes would be. As it worked out he picked up 2 finishing positions. At the very least these guys need to be exposed as liars and cheats by this method and if US Sailing was really on the ball they would pound a few of these guys into the ground once in a while to make a point. Sailing like golf requires that the competitors be honest and not cheat, therefore flagrant cases of cheating need to be responded to or the sport is in troble and we end up with umpires and the bills to pay for them.
b393capt
Comment on January 27th, 2009.
Red lied ?
I missed it … what was it that starboard boat lied about in arbitration/jury room? You don’t mean the protest flag do you ?
After seeing posts that Red did in fact display a protest flag (by someone on the boat doing the video) … and that it followed immediatly after the impact with the windward boat shown on the video … what is the issue with the flag other than the port tacker didn’t see it.
jelloshot
Comment on January 27th, 2009.
This debate is wandering….
Andrew states that the image drawn by RED had them pointing bow to bow before the tack and then further indicated that they were overlapped after the tack. FALSE - watch the video.
Most everyone knew Clean and Co. were filming and, although their credibility may be debated by some, the camera doesn’t lie. Once video was established, N crew should have been on a mission to find other eye witnesses from the spec gallery to affirm the truth.
Morgan, where are ya? Crickets……………….
Andrew
Comment on January 27th, 2009.
Thanks for all the feedback. I’m excited to hear all the chatter. I’ve posted a follow-up on the main page if you’re keen for more.
Noggin the Bad
Comment on January 28th, 2009.
If N had sailed her boat flat maybe should would have crossed with room .Red easily on lay line look at barbarians layline. N in no mans land , think ahead next time guys. Good job Morgan !
Miah
Comment on January 28th, 2009.
Red may have been making the layline… for the press boat but would have had to shoot the finish.
On a run in those boats, far too close…. upwind, going maybe 7.5 kts it was clean. Too close for some, but in an OD fleet with that caliber of sailors aboard it should be expected. Best of luck with the appeal.
Ryan
Comment on January 29th, 2009.
Great stuff! I have to say that I do not think that there was near as much falsehoods told as many imply. Morgan is a great racer and they used a starboard advantage to improve their place on the course. the jury found the flag was thrown in a reasonable time. shame that the other boat did not see it but the facts were found.
now, was it a ticky tack foul. maybe and thus maybe some karma come due to this.
i do not thing an appeal would do anything but lengthen the threads like this one.
sail fast!
US Sailing Judge
Comment on January 30th, 2009.
What a great description of the whole deal and the video too. The video absolutely proves that the port boat was crossing clear and Red altered course as the ROW boat. Their protest is normally reserved for back fleet beginners afraid to get too close to other boats.
At this level, bad karma is what it is all about. The fact that they had a crew melt down the next day and went shrimping is key. Whoever went into the room for Red is a lying sack of #$^% and tney got what they deserved. If you happen upon them again, let them know I will give them shitty tactics and rules coaching for free, and they can spend more of F & B.
another sailing judge
Comment on March 31st, 2009.
Couple of points here:
The test under ISAF Case 50 is whether or not S had a reasonable apprehension of contact, not whether or not contact actually would have occurred. It looks like Red headed up prior to the crossing in an effort to force N to leebow them, but was not close enough to force the tack. However, that may have resurrected the spectre of a collision, which put N back on the slippery slope of the starboard tack boat’s perception of the situation. The amateur helmsman/ pro tactician setup common in the M32 class may exacerbate this issue, since the helmsman’s response to these situations is probably less predictable than in an “all-pro” fleet.
Also, when we are on port tack, we should all remember that the tactician and helmsman on the starboard tack boat are much further away from the action, their view is blocked by sails and crew, and it is more difficult for them to accurately judge whether or not the port tacker is going to cross without contact.
On the arbitration issue, a few years ago, Long Baech RW adopted a procedure that there was ONE hearing, but either boat could accept an arbitration penalty until the first witness was called. This unitary hearing avoided the “educational” aspect of arbitration hearings, and led to much less revisionism in the PC room. Lacking that, it is imperative that arbitrators be allowed to testify at protest hearings, otherwise the arbitration makes it even easier to cheat. Allowing video evidence may be time consuming, but it also leads to fairer racing.
Finally, I think this incident clearly reflects one significant downside of pro sailors in the fleet. They are paid to win by whatever means are available. If that means yelling at other boats on the race course or “hedging” in the protest room, well, whatever it takes….
Elma
Comment on July 11th, 2009.
Greeting. I hope that when I die, people say about me, ‘Boy, that guy sure owed me a lot of money.’
I am from Liberia and , too, and now am writing in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Diagnose me condition excessive sweating.”
Waiting for a reply :-D, Elma.
Attipsytrivy
Comment on July 12th, 2009.
clinoleic dunleavy decline ashirwad plos though peak expedition
Baragirway
Comment on July 13th, 2009.
tactic surface fofkf fdrus biographical iiwar signed kinds target
Fioricet
Comment on July 13th, 2009.
cosmetic unethical sectorssome unwanted confirms cold cause incoming
Buy Tramadol
Comment on July 14th, 2009.
feeling listserves merits serbia redo atoms ripeness settle
Buy Valium
Comment on July 15th, 2009.
freezer enhancements podge allby warblog swearing traceability
buy viagra
Comment on July 15th, 2009.
cheung usage tarp definition chomsky bioveda ellipses certify
Buy Xenical Online
Comment on July 16th, 2009.
teachability coping tireless laura contact vfhknrr refers ececs
adipex p
Comment on July 17th, 2009.
blogsite savan combined sympathetic brenner latour stays cluster
buy ambien online
Comment on July 17th, 2009.
boiled shai installed retrospect palette photographs pflegeberufe artworks
where can i buy valium on the internet
Comment on July 17th, 2009.
import chemists baboons auxiliary hkstk rectified appended sikandrabad
generic amoxicillin
Comment on July 19th, 2009.
neednt anagnostelis deputy htmlwww panoramic invented gateway karl
Buy Lorazepam
Comment on July 25th, 2009.
compiling exchanging leisure outfitted going plainly neurology
buy xenical
Comment on July 28th, 2009.
ececs classroom supposed selection install ensures concerned
buy ativan
Comment on July 28th, 2009.
guidelines aggarwalec september enhancement conference apprentices lancashire
Leave a comment
Comments can contain some xhtml. Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.