Feb 11, 2010, 3:54 PM
Post #31 of 36
Re: [jrb] Alinghi Notice of Race/ISAF Rules status
[In reply to]
Log-In to Post/Reply
Cory Friedman does a nice literal analysis of the DoG.
We all understand what he is saying, but I think any Race Committee also has a "duty of care" owed to the participants. This is expected in these times and may also carry a legal liability as well.
If I was running the Race Committee in these litigious times, I would certainly want to be careful about the impact of any of my decisions.
In practical terms, I would want no argument over what actually constituted "Windward".
In order to "cover my arse" I would ensure that the weather mark was set the required distance to Windward of the start line, and do my best to ensure a fair start line at 90 deg. As in any race, once the gun goes the wind can shift where it likes. I could do no more or less than that. Surely there could be no complaint there?
I agree about it being the responsibility of the competing teams to build a boat capable of completing open ocean races. If they don't, it is entirely their own problem.
I can only repeat what I have previously said that these craft are unsuitable; that are not capable of open ocean racing. They are also dangerous, and this is entirely the responsibility of the relevant Clubs.
In the end, the Race Committee makes the call, but something puzzles me about the rigid programme of scheduling races only every second day.
The Deed states that one day shall pass after the CONCLUSION of one race, before the start of the next. Seems to me that Race 1 at least could be started on any day, and that we have already missed four days when this was possible.
Race 1 should have started last Monday. Despite being light conditions it would most likely have been concluded within the 7 hours, thereby getting a result.
Race 2 should have started Wednesday, in stronger conditions meaning the time limit was not going to get in the way.
There was nothing to prevent either of these races starting, although they had difficulty on Day 1 in setting a weather mark because of 100 deg wind variations.
If we believe the hype about these two boats, Alinghi would have been happier with the weather on Monday, and BOR would have been happier with the weather on Wednesday.
I don't know what level of mutual consent there is in holding the boats at the dock so that course conditions can be examined. I suppose it is a practical consideration of the logistics involved, but I would prefer to see the boats out on the course.
Am I alone in hating these stupid featherweight multi hulls? If they are so "technologically advanced", why can't they race on the ocean in regular offshore conditions?
We'll soon see what happens to such technologically advanced sailing freaks when they hit solid ocean wind and waves at high speed. My bet is that they will break. I just hope no one is killed if they do.
I guess I suffer from a sense of fair play. My sensibilities have been thoroughly offended by what has occurred over the last 2 years or so of never ending Court action, that I fear for the future of this great event.
In the end, the Deed says they should race, but nobody wants to be responsible for causing death or injury. Common sense ought to prevail in the regatta organisation at least, even if it has been missing in the lead up.
There really ought to be a survey requirement of any boat that competes for America's Cup, at any time. The survey should specify the structural integrity of any boat within normal parameters of ocean racing conditions. There isn't, which is a failure of the Deed in this case. Therefore some common sense and patience is needed.
As always, after considering the race conditions it is always going to be up to the skipper to decide whether to continue or not.