Translation missing: en.posts.shared.post_not_found

Powered by
WIND


Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • I agree with John on most of this.  Rule 18.3(a) does say "shall not cause the other boat to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact, and" so it does talk about "why".  Having said that I think the question would be if she fell down to close-hauled (or rather just took the header) would there have been contact.  If not then her sailing above close hauled was not "to avoid contact" but if there would have been contact then her sailing above close-hauled is "to avoid contact" (even if there are other reasons as well).  With P being to leeward I have trouble constructing the situation where S has to luff to get around the mark but would not make contact with P if she went down to closehauled.
    Today 03:43
  • 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
  • Rob .. I like it. It captures the "obvious contact" condition and ties it up nicely. 
    25-Dec-14 20:09

Forums Leader Board

This Month

1 John Allan 4.85K
2 Michael Butterfield 4.45K
3 Michael Moradzadeh 3.8K
4 Jim Champ 3.65K
5 John Quirk 2.2K
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more