Translation missing: en.posts.shared.post_not_found

Powered by
WIND


Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • Q1: I would say, conceivably, yes, it could (eg: perhaps Boat A is part of a team, and was doing so to help a fellow team-boat or to elevate or bolster their or its own standing etc). Such ‘intent’ not always so easy to prove though (in this case (2 and 23) – on a ‘balance of probabilities’ (preponderance of the evidence’; whereas, 69 uniquely requires “…the test of the ‘comfortable satisfaction’...”.

    Q2:  a boat could be competing (in a race or series of races) or anticipating to race (competing is not a [defined term] but has two references: 36 (a) and C9.2), but not racing (a [defined term]) at the given or particular time. 



    Today 01:41
  • Are we assuming 15 and 16.1 do not apply?
    Yesterday 19:03
  • Not really thought about it before but as expressed time on time allows for wind to some extent and i am used to this.

    I do work in an irc world and find other hanhicap systems complex and costly. And now with added penalties discredited. 

    Best to have one system. 


  • I must have been referring to the right subparagraph:  Jim understood.

    Fixed.
    25-Dec-16 13:39
  • Thanks John...even then with "...bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation." (seriousness being the operative word), there is an educated [jurisdictional] assesssment of sorts to be made.
    25-Dec-16 03:37

Forums Leader Board

This Month

1 John Allan 5.65K
2 Michael Butterfield 5.05K
3 Jim Champ 4.05K
4 Michael Moradzadeh 3.8K
5 John Quirk 2.4K
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more