Translation missing: en.posts.shared.post_not_found

Powered by
WIND


Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • Still available:  RYA Advisory Meeting

    https://www.rya.org.uk/racing/rules/rya-rules-disputes-process/

    If you switch in Appendix T in your SI, then boats can take a Post Race Penalty without Arbitration.

    There are problems:

    By providing an 'official' venue to rake over incidents but without protest validity or 'official finality', you are actually encouraging a 'no protest' culture, and where the Advisory Meeting 'concludes' that a boat had dead set broken a rule, you then run into possible ill will if the boat doesn't then take a PRP or retire, and possible Rule 2 complaints about knowing that she has broken a rule and not taking a penalty.
    Today 21:26
  • Thank you for your reply born of direct experience. You were in a hole from which no amount of digging would have got you out. If it weren't for the weather running sailboat races would be a doddle, but it's the weather that makes it interesting. Long ago I ran a national championship with 6 races (one scheduled per day – those were the days) and a four race minimum. We got the required four in, but only just, and on the final day; nail-biting stuff in a light-wind week at a normally-windy venue. Back then the concept of event sponsors, let alone personal ones, was pretty alien, limited to whether we could get the club's brewery to subsidise the bar, so no pressure. 

    It raises another question: if the minimum can be set at one, the part of the sentence in RRS A1 – 'and the number required to be scored to constitute a series' becomes inessential. The RRS should therefore be amended to make this requirement a separate, optional sentence. Nevertheless, deciding a multi-race event, let alone a championship, on the basis of one race makes the whole event a farce. Whereas at the Olympics......oh wait.... 
    Today 11:36
  • I think the spirit of the RYA reply, that the volunteer is only acting as part of the RC when doing something they have been authorised/delegated to, is fundamentally sound. However it leaves a glaring hole. Supposing a competitor is significantly disadvantaged by someone doing an RC function they have not been authorised to do?
    Yesterday 23:35
  • Tim the "sort it out on the water" is emblematic of the 2-boat centric mindset which is misplaced in fleet racing.  It's a foundation of that old article I wrote. 

    When a boat breaks a rule for which they are not exonerated (and then do not take a penalty) they gain an incalculable advantage against all other boats in the fleet.  Some are close, some might be on the other side of the course, and it's impossible for anyone to calculate what those advantages are.  

    The idea that 2 boats can "work it out on the water" reduces the effect of a boat's rule-breach to only the other boat that is referred-to in that rule ... as if this was a one-on-one match race and no other boats existed.  

    THAT is what I try to get-through first when this topic comes up with individual racers.  When we compete in fleet racing, we are all OTW judges for the rest of the fleet.
    Yesterday 13:59
  • I think that there is a difference between 'will promptly take a penalty' and 'are encouraged to'. 

    When reading RRS 2 it is essential to refer to WS Case 138, which sets out actions that can be cosidered to be examples of bad sportsmanship or misconduct.
    Wed 12:51

Forums Leader Board

This Month

1 John Allan 4.05K
2 Michael Moradzadeh 3.6K
3 Michael Butterfield 2.85K
4 Jim Champ 2.75K
5 Benjamin Harding 2.5K
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more