You've just stated, unequivicolly, you don't accept that starboard has right of way and you are willing to challenge that right of way.

Circumstances on the race course may not be black and white but this rule is.

Once again, you're building a case to evade the rule. What you're doing is a little like creative accounting to evade taxes. Of course you're willing to pay the penalty IF you get caught. How kind of you.

Show me where I stated this....even in a fuzzy manner, much less unequivocally. Starboard always has right of way in this situation. I'm only challenging the level of my own certainty upon which I can cross without fouling starboard.

If you go back and read my first post, you'll see that I elected to not make the cross because I was unsure that we would clear them. Later, our competitor said he thought we would have crossed clean.

I think you guys are confusing me with Dave who stated (and I paraphrase) "foul them, the turns penalty hurts less than the situation you ended up in". <---this wasn't me.

Anytime your certainty is less than 100% you're challenging the rule.

nope. Nothing is certain.


(I'm trying a new argument tactic with you - philosophical debates kept under 5 words each).

Jake don't fall into the Pete/Mark vortex unless of course it's a slow day at work and you're bored. You've made your point and your point and your point the rest of us get it, you'll never change the direction of Pete or Mark.

"the rest of us" That's a little grandiose.

The victim in the port/starboard encounter I've alluded to was considering violence for a time and there was talk of black listing the offender from the club.

Jake's attitude moves the onus of the rule from the port tack boat to the starboard tack boat. I doubt that has unanimous support.

Jake,
I hear what you are saying. But I think you have the percentages wrong. The way you explain it it sounds more like you are talking 98 percent sure you will make it and only 2 that you will not. And you are taking in considerations for speed wind angles other boats etc.
It really sounds like you only take the cross if you feel you have a really good chance(98%) on making or it you do not it will be without any real impact on the right of way boat.

The problem is how other sailors might interpret what you are saying.

Dave you are not only wrong buy way out in left field. The actions you are endorsing will get you or another boat in real trouble or someone really hurt.

It's a slow day.

Only you assert this position.


this five word thing is tough

50%+ = better than average chance clean.

Not quite, a similar opinion was offered last evening.

At least you're having fun.

Does a contraction count as one word or two?

It counts as one - and numbers/symbols don't count at all.

From the outside, it looks like there is several different conversations/discussions going on at the same time. some of the latest posts have nothing to do with the initial one. Somewhere a tangent evolved, albeit loosely, and I think several of you guys are on different pages.

Just sayin,

Huh.... using plain language you would say... I Can or I Can't cross.... no probablities matter here..

That is exactly how you set this situation up... You made a No GO decision.

You infered that I called you a cheater.... that is morality
I assert that your mindset and language violate the RRS.

OK... You keep saying two different things....
70/30 is risk that you will take and break the rule.. (not hit the last 30% of the boat.)
vs
100% that you will not break the rule.

The game requires the second standard. (standards are pass/fail)


Never a question that if you were at fault or challanged ... you would do your turns.

However... you ignore the principle of the rule... or simply don't accept it... (petes point)



I completely agree that the REALITY on the water can make your 100%... "I will cross Orphan" cleanly go sideways.

At that point... (Follows in time and as a consequence of your decision to cross) the rules require starbord to avoid collision and allow you to take a penalty turn.... HISTORICALLY.... you would have been DSQd from the race....

The RRS are set up so that you accept responsiblity to call your own on the PS ROW. and ROW is absolute.

These are absolute requirments and set the standard for behavior on the race course.

The mindset you use 70/30..... risk reward, collision or not... is simply a violation of the rules... falls below the standard... What you count on is the local etiquette of crossing ... However, the chronic low level violations day to day on the race course violoate the standard.

Orphan is being nice to you... the issue is more then language you are using.

Try this.
So... this is a call your own sport.... (we agree on this correct?)

If the penalty of a foul in a cross was DSQ for you .... AND you agree that you and you alone make the call on your possible foul of Starbord... on the water

How would you describe the descion making process?

This is the standard of the RRS... (Standards are pass fail)

"At that point... (Follows in time and as a consequence of your decision to cross) the rules require starbord to avoid collision and allow you to take a penalty turn.... HISTORICALLY.... you would have been DSQd from the race.... "

I'd like to see the historical rule reinstated.

Same. 30% weighs heavier on consequence.

I'd have to +1 to Jake for being a very nice dude to sail with/against. Good grasp of rules and not going to do anything really stupid (we'll let that sailing with the beach wheels thing go for this comment, but...)

I think I first got to know Jake at one of the races in the Keys. I think he did so many turns that weekend he was dizzy... I think we've all been there at some point. Alex schooled me a few times on some of the finer points of RRS

And I'm sure we've all made "questionable" crosses. Some worked, some involved crash-bear aways/ crash-tacks. I can't think of any in my limited sailing that involved collisions. And I REALLY can't think of any that involved INTENTIONAL damage... But I don't race professional.

I'm sure someone said before that it's probably the STB tacker's obligation to enforce the rules by noting a protest (NOT HITTING THE OFFENDER) and altering course to avoid collision.

[sarcasm] OMG! The unbelievable lack of ethics! [/sarcasm]

Balls of steel, and a program with a fat enough wallet to pay for it.

Still not legal, even in a small fleet.

Mike