Sunday February 13th ITBYC sunday night

[Lyr]

About first situation:
Julien did really no action to avoid. Isn't it to consider? But if you think it is not, than at least the 13 of casino is to exonerate by 64.1 through the 15 of nuuk.
At 10:16 nuuk finished tack and at that point casinos best to keep clear is tacking (he cant anticipate, that nuuk will bear further...). Even enough room to Julien, without the boost of the collision with nuuk and maybe a little reaction of Julien, there would be no contact between these boats.

nuuk is exonerated through the 360
the other boats are exonerated through the 15 of nuuk
i stay with a 'maybe' 11 for Julien (because no reaction at all and much bearing before the sit)




About second case:

Even if you go for 152 TWA i would go for 154-156 which would comply with the definition of proper course on a downwind:

that doesnt suit to the situation, because there was a contact and room between both boats was shrinking. It could not be, that casino sailed higher than you.
Also after contact you jibe and it looks like you are above layline, or?

I tend to a 11/17 now.

[TiGER]

Of course Casino's sailing course was not higher. In fact that is what i am saying, his sailing course was lower since both boats gybed to port tack. At no time he pointed higher in order to keep clear under rrs 11.

What Casino is refering to is TWA. But TWA of the windward boat is higher (lower number 154 degrees) compared to twa (higher number 156) of a leeward boat because of the deflected wind aka bad air.
It is a similar effect like in an upwind leg when the leeward boat has a lower twa (30 degrees) than the windward boat (32 degrees).

Anyway, at all time on a downwind leg when the leeward boat is in the windshadow of a windward boat it has significantly less wind thus its twa to sail fast is smaller compared to the best twa of the windward boat.

At 6min40 when contact occured i was not over lay.

At 6min49sec i was not over layline. At that moment overlap was broken, no 17 on. How could i have broken 17 afterwards?

[Lyr]

At 6min49sec i was not over layline. At that moment overlap was broken, no 17 on. How could i have broken 17 afterwards?

it was just a guess, it is difficult to see on the replay and iam not used to the see this... but i wanted to point out that we have to pay attention to this, even if it was after contact
About your other point, i have to think a longer while... difficult to decide.


cheers jan

[hula]

About situation on race 6, I think is a double pen.
17 for Tiger because he luff (sail above her proper course), and 11 for Casino because he don't keep clear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hYCboMmk2g>
Sorry I don't know how post a video here.

For the situation on race 2 I'm in the team involved so I prefer don't give my opinion

[NuuK(Soulwave)]

Thx for the video Claudio. This video show it more cleaner than the replay does to me yesterday.
It shows that Tiger sailed above her proper course (also before she was in bad air), so 17.1 broken. We are agree that Casino is to penalise for an 11. Both 4penalty points. Red won on the water -> red get the win.

Holger

[hula]

Race 2 video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVLnWsf-Tf4

[admiral 1]

Finally, just to specify the rules, is sailing 2 degrees higher on a downwind leg (154-156 instead of 156-158 twa) already going over proper course? Regarding VMG which is important for "fastest way" i think it even does not matter if you go 156 or 158.

The BoatParams of the RC44 were made such that passinglanes would be wide. Aka downwind proepercourse can easily ly between 170° and 150°, depending on wavefield.
Propercourse for one another boat can only be decide by comparing a boats previous behaviour.

Vsk 17 on a normal run when 2 boats are involved is turned on correctly in VSK, penatlies are given correctly too. The only problem is that skipper as in real ife have a hard time execepting decicsions that go against them. However the VSK AI umpire decides on bits and bytes and these are always the same... The cancelation of a R11 because a R17 would apply is only explainable by severe lag, and like in any bad weather circumstance the burden should lie entirely by the give way boat.

Never ever can a R11 penalty be legally canceled because the leeward boat infringed R17. The windward boat must keep clear no matter what. Incase a leeward boat broke R17 then both boats should be penaliased.. something the VSK umpire does correctly.

[admiral 1]

Thx for the video Claudio. This video show it more cleaner than the replay does to me yesterday.
It shows that Tiger sailed above her proper course (also before she was in bad air), so 17.1 broken. We are agree that Casino is to penalise for an 11. Both 4penalty points. Red won on the water -> red get the win.

Holger

Where in the video did you ever see what a proper course is.
All see is Casino bear down 2-3° at the start of the video......
both boats on straight course after that... ever but slowly converging....

[hula]

I don't know if there is different twd from start of video to the end. I noted that Casino at time 12 sec have a HDG (before overlap), and when overlap start he luff at different HDG (see the island in front) and after this hold his course. You are right when stated that the boat converging, and I'm sure that the 11 for Casino was right, but also there is a costant luff from Tiger. The question is only is that course proper or not? For me the luff is over PC.... if I'm wrong what is the limit of PC?

[TiGER]

The question is only is that course proper or not? For me the luff is over PC

Taking the replay and your video as the given facts, what exactly is the evidence which prooves that i was (luffed) over proper course?

Do you have a reference course of nearby boats? One skipper claims he is forced over proper course, the other one claims that he is not over proper course.

The boats do not heel in an unnatural way. So it is up to the boat which is protested to have broken rrs 17 to proove that it was not over pc?
In case of doubt of if course was above pc it should be assumed it was?



The nadeo umpire gave an 11 but no 17. Usually he is correct when it comes to contact when the leeward boat is luffing over proper course.
If you want to fix proper course to a specific twa, what should that number be? How much tolerance is allowed? 1 degree? 2 degree?
Do you think that luff you mention in the video is more than 1-2 degrees?

[admiral 1]

but also there is a costant luff from Tiger. The question is only is that course proper or not?

Luff here can only mean Tiger's boat points higher, converging is as little as it gets..

Proper course is not related to TWD, if only because on the other side of the course a better TWD or more pressure is expected, or just to get a boat from adverse currents to advantageous currents

The respective porper course for a boat is decided by that particular boat. Hence deciding a boat is NOT sailing a proper course needs much more then courses converging or seperating with other boats. It needs convincing evidence, facts that proof a skipper was not sailing a proper course.

For what it is worth the AI Umpire is dead right on 17.1 (it has the VPP files available... ) So rather the question is here why is the judgement of the Umpire not accepted. Except in the hope of getting a jury that feels that a proper course is the exact determined optimum course, for that boat in flat water, absolut static wind conditions and no current whatsoever... on the course.. then get out a ruler to measure if Tiger is above that course and so determines that she sailed above her proper course...

The notion that from a short video with only these 2 boats on the same course such can be determined is well.... i presume it is a video made from the replay That a replay contains the same exact wind (randomised) fluctuations is something that still has to be proven.. none the less its accepted by definition as desicive.

All is see is a one boat not keeping clear, canceling the attached penalty because the other boat broke a rule... where this absolutely does not mandate a cancellation. I think not keeping clear is obvious enough, canceling because the other boat infringes R17.1 is not right. Actually wildly luffing and then protesting that R17.1 was broken would have had merits. As it is an apology would have been more at place...

[RhodyRams]

Thx for the video Claudio. This video show it more cleaner than the replay does to me yesterday.
It shows that Tiger sailed above her proper course (also before she was in bad air), so 17.1 broken. We are agree that Casino is to penalise for an 11. Both 4penalty points. Red won on the water -> red get the win.

Holger

Holger, during the first RPC cup we had a situation where it was a borderline 17 pen on you. We were sailing upwind with 17 active and you pinching. You later claimed you were sailing TWD 28-29(which i thought was higher but with no way to prove it, just as IRL, I just have to take your word for it, which I did). Now the 28-29 is about 3-4 degrees what most would call optimum VMG. However, I do think that that you had warrant on your argument cause boats can have different proper courses, in this case it could easily be argued that you in pinch mode for a various reasons, all of which are easily argued and acceptable.

Now what does it have to do with this case, basically you can't turn around and take the other side of the argument this time.So is Tiger 3 degrees, 5 degrees above proper course? Judging by the two boats there isn't a huge difference in angles. So, how much do you think Tiger is above proper course? but more importantly What is his proper course? As Theo sails there are many factors that play into PC..

As Case 14 tells us Two boats on the same leg sailing near one another may have different proper courses... and again as Theo says there needs to be convincing evidence that a boat is above proper course.

So IMO watching I don't see enough evidence to say he is above PC so think this should be ruled as an 11 pen only. Now if there is more evidence that I don't have or see than there might be grounds for a dual 11/17 pen..

Just my two cents

Mike

[NuuK(Soulwave)]

Thx Mike. So it seems the more people have some sayings, the more people vote for an 11. As I said on TS after the cup it is more an 11 than a 17.1 for me. In the badest way it is a 11/17.1.
What do you say about the other situation?

Holger

[NuuK(Soulwave)]

Matthias and Jan: Are you still have a solution? Its time to score the event. Please tell me who should get the win here.
About the case Julien vs. Casino: Im sry that we dont have much input here, but cause Julien didnt take part here, Matthias has the arguments on his side, furthermore we dont have much input on this case.

Holger

[TiGER]

Regarding the scoring of the race i think both Matthias and me do not bother much about that.

What is more important imo is how rrs 17 (both in up- and downwind legs, even in reachings) will be handled in the future:
-When there is no visible evidence of a course over proper course (no screenshot of twa, not much heeling under gennaker, no course to mark or nearby boats on parallel course as reference) is just the protest of the windward boat sufficient to penalize the leeward boat?
-Who shall furnish evidence for breaking or not breaking rrs 17 (over or not over proper course), the protestor or the protested?
-What is the tolerance in vsk? No tolerance? 1-2 degrees? 28 TWA instead of 32 TWA in an upwind?

I know that when it comes to numbers lots of skippers will respond with "depends".