tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post2941024213125576264..comments2024-01-22T09:45:29.790+01:00Comments on Racing Rules of Sailing - Look to Windward: (pillow)Case of the week (02/12) – 28Joshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10346870418220762709noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-72735728458109563082012-02-14T14:59:58.547+01:002012-02-14T14:59:58.547+01:00She would be only exonerated if there was no fault...She would be only exonerated if there was no fault of her own. If the mark was visible all the time that would be hard to deny.<br />In scenario 2 it is still - maybe partly - her own fault. So no redress.Joshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10346870418220762709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-36570934012766533902012-02-14T01:20:40.002+01:002012-02-14T01:20:40.002+01:00In the case above, the hitting of the mark was una...In the case above, the hitting of the mark was unavoidable (as it surfaced and bounced against S). <br />Imagining a slightly different scenario - S still ducking P but a boat length further away from the mark. Would she be exonerated if the bouy was always visible but she touches it - still as a result of the R10 breach by P? <br />If yes, would she still be exonerated if the result of the duck being that S was pointing directly at the mark - and with say 2 seconds to decide on her actions she has 2 choices : <br />1. Duck below the mark and gybe round to return to start.<br />2. Try to 'shoot' the mark using momentum to pass on the correctt side.<br />I think you've established that in option 1 she would not get redress for the lost time and resultant poor start.<br />But would she get exonerated if she tries to shoot the mark on the correct side but just brushes it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-13871463079800587042012-02-05T13:03:45.317+01:002012-02-05T13:03:45.317+01:00That would be quite possible. The difficulty is th...That would be quite possible. The difficulty is that rule 2 demands that the violation, of recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play, must be clearly established. That is something beyond the balance of probability that is needed for other rule infringements.Joshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10346870418220762709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-49999390960360044412012-02-05T12:22:29.140+01:002012-02-05T12:22:29.140+01:00P did not respond to the hail and sailed on. If du...P did not respond to the hail and sailed on. If during the hearing it is established that P deliberately break rule 10, should P be found to have broken rule 2?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-33106179443147778052012-02-04T11:54:58.840+01:002012-02-04T11:54:58.840+01:00I don't think so. In order to get redress unde...I don't think so. In order to get redress under 62.1(b) there has to be damage or injury - that effects the boat speed or performance in the race.<br />The only other possibility is if P was penalized for rule 2. Then rule 62.1(d) gives the possibility to grant redress. But since this was at the start, boat S would have to convince the PC that it was this incident that made her score significantly worse and not anything else that might have happened during the race.<br /><br />In order for P to be penalized for rule 2 the PC would have to conclude that P knew she broke a rule and deliberately chose not to take a penalty. Something that is not unimaginable in this scenario, IMHO.Joshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10346870418220762709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9170261917486213112.post-83076361148194338582012-02-04T11:38:42.211+01:002012-02-04T11:38:42.211+01:00Is there any reasonable chance in this situation (...Is there any reasonable chance in this situation (no physical damage, no injury) for S to get a redress if she would have returned to start correctly?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com