Sunday February 13th ITBYC sunday night

[RhodyRams]

The second situation is a tough one. I think the main question that answers the rest is this. Does Nuuk break rule 15? And thus Casino would then be exonerated for his rule 13 breech by 64.1(c).. Casino has no way of knowing that Nuuk is going to duck and to be protected by Rule 15 must at least attempt to keep clear. Now the counter argument, What is Casino best option to keep clear? I can see the best way to keep clear is to keep his course or maybe even head down to clear his stern. Now on a computer game with limited views, I see it being very hard to make that decision quickly enough. So while I can go either way, I would lean towards a Ruling that looks like this. Rule 15 to Nuuk. And a rule 13 pen to Casino but is exonerated under 64.1(c).

Again it's kind of a complex situation in VSK because of communication, view, and lag issues....Now if we want to make it even more complex we could inject Rule 14 to the discussions (I know this taken out in appendix D for VSK but it would change things a bit I think)

[TiGER]

Mike:

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.

Since the race is scored as a win for the rrs17 protesting team without an answer to my rule question about proper course and evidence it looks like that all you have to do in a race is protesting rrs17, accusing your opponent to go over proper course without providing any evidence, yourself breaking rrs 11 and cancel a nadeo ump decision.

Strange...

[NuuK(Soulwave)]

Lol Jan, you are funny.
Matthias wrote me, that the scoring was in consultation with you, so what is your problem? This system just works when people work together not against each other.
And note, also when there is a twin penalty, you would loose this, but wait: U also wrote that the results doesnt matter for you...

.. strange...

Holger

[casino]

yep, strange as Jan agreed to the score because he agreed to the 16,1 to him near the finsh.
i really don t know why Jan told me in chat that we should agree to a twin pen plus a pen to him for breaking RRS 16,1 near finish.
@Jan, did i misunderstood our discussion at itbyc chat ? or why do you feel about a strange behavior?
i told Holger to score as i was sure we worked out together (both situations).
maybe you changed your mind, you does not remember our conversation or i just misunderstood.
just let me know before you feel more about a strange behavior by me...

[TiGER]

Holger, Matt,

all i wonder is why there is no comment from your side about my specific rule questions regarding handling a rrs 17 protest in the future.

The 16.1 you mention, Matt, is offset by rrs 11 broken by Julien, i already wrote that. You gave no comment about that, too.

Again, will a leeward boat penalized for breaking rrs 17 when there is no proof given that it sails above proper course in the future?
If the windward boat protests the leeward boat to sail above proper course it is up to the protested boat to proof that it does not?

[casino]

Jan? do you remember our chat conversation?
Holger pls change result.
i don t have time for further discussions.
Case closed for me

[TiGER]

That is exactly what i mean, Matt. All you think about is the race result.

But you deny any discussion about the case itself and my rule question independently seen apart from our situation.

[casino]

yep, i deny a further discussion with you.

[RhodyRams]

Jan, I'm put this disclaimer i. I have no idea about the scoring of the race in question, I wasn't there and am not on any committees here, I just saw the thread and it asked for opinions so I gave mine.

Now I can't fully answer your question about how it should be ruled here on VSK but will give my take on how I view it. If I'm not mistaken your bascially asking how much tolerance should in Rule 17 and more specifically Proper Course. Well my view of proper course is that it's very subjective. The RRS of sailing defines proper course as the course a boat would sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term. A boat has no proper course before her starting signal. One of the best part of the sport of sailing is that there is many different ways to be successful. Thus every boat will have a different strategy and a different view of what there proper course is. So I don't think you can really define it solely in terms of numbers and degrees. We are lucky here on VSK that we can actually watch a replay which can be very telling.
So in the lack of clear evidence(in this case a replay that shows clearly a boat is above proper course) than the onus should be on the parties involved to prove their cases, just like a protest hearing in real life. Most of the time the parties will have different views and the one that can't does a better job proving their position(using the racing rules) will likely win.

For example in a VSK race. If the replay doesn't show solid evidence that a leeward boat was sailing above proper course than more of the onus should go on the windward boat to prove that they did. And it goes the other way. If the replay shows some good evidence that they were above a proper course, than more onus goes on the leeward boat to prove that was indeed a PC, aka the course they would have steered in the absence of the other boat.

So the overall answer to your question from my view is exactly what you didn't want to hear. It depends and every situation should be viewed on it's own to establish all the facts and honestly don't think it should be defined by numbers.

Again I stress this is my own view of how I think it should be done. I don't have involved in this protest except to have provide an opinion.

[admiral 1]

Like Holger said

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.

When skipper involved agree about scoring then that settles the scoring. If then because there is semething to be learned, or one is seeking confirmation of his believes it may be better practice to neutralise an incident. As such you can use a race situation like boats or TSS to present and visualise a "case". That usually will decouple a discussion from the competetiveness involved with winning a race yet can clarify, for all, what to expect and it may or may not change a sreaders view. Just don't use specific replays for trying to clear up something after the facts... instead just open a thread about some "unrelated case" which allows everybody involved to learn... BTW that's what the B in ITBYC stands for it come right after the racing bit.

To sumarise this "case" R11 vs. R17.1, when you go in front of a PC or an umpire your chances seem be better when:

- you get an R11 penalty because somebody luffs you: Do not cancel it (Better yet you could have kept clear... )
- when you experience somebody luffing you that should be restricted in luffing by R17.1: Protest... and try to win the race
- you may expect a jury and or umpire decide your way when they are able to find that sailing above a proper course is beyond doubt...and be sure to win the race.

Also remind yourself that no judge and no umpire is the same... and expect them to become less "friendly" when you waste their time... they usually are all human beings, just like competing skipper.... ah and of course they can make mistakes too