Forums
The Racing Rules of Sailing |
1842 Posts
|
|
Rule 18 and Room at the Mark |
176 Posts
|
|
Protest Committee & Hearing Procedures |
110 Posts
|
|
Race Committee & Race Management |
81 Posts
|
|
Rules 2 and 69 |
49 Posts
|
|
Match and Team Racing Rules |
47 Posts
|
|
Training Materials, Presentations and Classes |
59 Posts
|
|
Share Your SI/NOR Language |
49 Posts
|
|
Event Management & Forum System (Q's, Comments & Suggestions) |
174 Posts
|
|
Regole e dintorni - Italian Channel |
50 Posts
|
Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.
Recent Posts
-
3 CommentsAntónio Negreiros Fernandes, Today 22:21
-
74 CommentsChin In, Sun 11:31
-
30 CommentsPJohn Allan, Sun 09:56
-
11 CommentsDave Sanderson, Fri 11:45
-
51 CommentsPJohn Allan, Fri 00:12
Recent Comments
-
Is any additional proof required besides the RO testimony?António Negreiros Fernandes Today 22:50
-
Ant said John, I see a big difference between :
- When the mainsheet was released, did your boat, whether intentionally or nor, change course ? and,
- When the mainsheet was released, your boat changed course. Can you say by how much ?
I agree.
Number 2 is a 'When did you stop beating your wife' question and starts with an assertion of an unproven fact.
My problem with either is that, if there is no other evidence that the boat changed course, the judge is planting an idea in the hearing that was not there.
Bearing in mind that when the main is started, unless someone falls on the tiller, the boat is going to bear away, if anything, I guess a smart answer would by 'You betcha, we bore away to avoid the windward boat because we had a reasonable apprehension that we were going to collide.'John Allan Today 21:44 -
Jim Champ Reply to: 22039 - John Quirk: furthermore, in CASE 50, in the first sentence, it actually uses the term "genuine and reasonable apprehension" (this of course a standard used by courts with applications for an arrest in connection with non-bailable offences), and in the second sentence 'reasonable doubt' (again, a well-tested legal / court term). Quite some complexity for a competitor and PC to become acquainted with :).
John Quirk Today 02:01 -
Ang I as well .. was just trying to clearly describe where/how the ambiguity resides that you pointed out.
And I appreciate it.(Why do I suddenly feel like I'm Charlie Brown and you're Lucy holding the ball! <g>).
I never called you a blockhead.John Allan Mon 19:26
