it's over, congratulations to Team UK for fighting fiercely. Luna rossa was simply superior in all wind and sea current conditions. 7-1 is an unappealable sentence.
The second penalty called to Ineos wasn't a recall for the OCS ones (when the light goes off the OCS penalty was done) the other penalty to Ineos was cause they entered inside the safety diamond of Luna Rossa (not allowed), forcing the Italians to suddently tun to avoiding the collision, so there Ineos gain an advantage. Safety Diamond described in the AC rules, page 4. Keep Clear Border A symmetrical polygon that touches the: • aft point on the media post, • 2 metres outboard from the transom corners, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule) • 2 metres outboard from the maximum beam at the foil arm region (9.950 m and 12.000 m forward of TRP), perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule), and • 2 metres outboard from the end of the bowsprit, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule). So the Umpries was quite right at my advice.
Seen you post this a few times. There is no confusion over what the penalty was for. The confusion was that the penalty was cleared on the INEOS boat, then an additional penalty was added one minute later (after Jimmy prompts) for gaining an advantage. If the umpire had properly waited until INEOS were 50m behind before clearing the inital penalty, then the would be no confusion. Additionally, the umpire gets the call on OCS penalties neutralising completely wrong. This adds to the confusions.
@@MozzySails That confusion was explained by umpries themselves, as you know there's umpries on sea with boats and umpries on the dock cabin as "TMO" the issue was that for some reasons the TMO umpries had no disposal of the immages and they was warned of the Ineos second infraction from the boats umpries after the Spithil complain. Or at leats is what i know regarding the matter, but overall they have appled the rules in a good way, with a little bit of confusion but with this fast boat is never easy. Regarding the OCS neutralising i agree, buth if i not mistake they could neutralize or they couldn't, the neutralization is mandatory? I don't remember that.
@@solinvictus1234 if the umpire flags it as clear. Then what advantage is gained? The whole point of these penalties is the offending boat gets behind and th umpire tells them when they have achieved that. That's Ben's point in the press conference. The umpire (mistakenly) says they are clear, but the later penalizing them for making a gain. The truth is, INEOS didnt gain, just the umpires cleared the penalty early. The OCS neutralisation is a clear mistake and there is no facility for it in th rules. The reason for this is pretty obvious.
When the leading boat gets to pick the shifts and the side, that's enough advantage in most cases to hold their lead (given a degree of wind variability). At this level, both boats are good enough to exercise that advantage from the leading position; it's enough for Ineos to win the odd race. But LRPP is faster tacking and equal on a straight line, and has proven the better starter. Ineos might get another win in the series, but it will be LRPP going to the America's Cup barring unforeseen events.
surely it depends upon weather conditions - good sporting weather would put Ineos in a strong position to challenge and then we would see how cool the other team really are. It is still not over yet. Even in light airs Ineos looks faster downwind.
@Glenn Watson Match racing in open ocean?? Wtf?? Currents, tides, and wind shifts are critical pieces of match racing, not to mention the open ocean would suck for crash boats and setting marks.
thanks for mentioning that the larger jib of ineos is what always seemed to give them better downward speed. the tv announcers seemed to miss this important point. well done
Without doubt the best analysis of the AC on the web. Technical enough for those that know a bit about the sport, but basic enough for someone with a passing interest.
Nice summary. I agree on the penalty front, it didn’t make a lot of sense but as you say I guess the result was right. I wonder what would haven happened if Ineos had taken a dip behind LR in the first race, which may have seen LR still OCS and Ineos would then have been able to get advantage of the penalty against LR.
In this case LR surely would not have luffed to the line. INOS would have been in the downwash and slowed down. But - What I wondered - why did LR not just simply dip back over the line and then start correctly. They were set up in a very good position to do that and it wouldn't have costs much. It would have left them with an OCS penalty on INOS which forced them to let them pass anyway. Thats what I would have done
I was screaming at the laptop for INEOS to duck them as they were both early. Maybe it would have worked, may be not, but at least they would have been in control of their own destiny, instead of an umpires' questionable judgment. I guess its always easy from under the duvet 🤐
The second penalty called to Ineos wasn't a recall for the OCS ones (when the light goes off the OCS penalty was done) the other penalty to Ineos was cause they entered inside the safety diamond of Luna Rossa (not allowed), forcing the Italians to suddently tun to avoiding the collision, so there Ineos gain an advantage and for that the umpries gived another penalty to them. Safety Diamond described in the AC rules, page 4. Keep Clear Border A symmetrical polygon that touches the: • aft point on the media post, • 2 metres outboard from the transom corners, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule) • 2 metres outboard from the maximum beam at the foil arm region (9.950 m and 12.000 m forward of TRP), perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule), and • 2 metres outboard from the end of the bowsprit, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule).
You should be on the commentary team. Despite their experience it seems the presenters haven't done enough homework on the rules specific to this competition to be able to discuss penalties from a position of knowledge. Thanks for your clarifications.
This maybe why it took the Mozzy boys so long to do this video! Fantastic videos and analysis. Here's hoping we win the next 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 starts :)
Thanks for doing these Videos! I look forward to every one! You do such a great job of breaking down all the competition subtleties in an easy to digest form, especially for a simpleton like me! :-| Question- Since the Umpire made a bad call, adding confusion to Ineos race tactics (where they were provided a "green okay") Can Ineos protest the race results based on Umpire's mistake and lack of clarity? (even though) the penalty was just. I think the impacts ultimately changed the race outcome. Also If that type of protest were upheld, would Ineos be able to force a "Do-over" of the race? What are the race boats options for logging an "Official Complaint" as it impacted the results? I thought I remembered in previous America's Cup races, if the race start was "Jumped" that either or both boats were required to go back and cross the starting line again. (I could be wrong...) I think that is a more fair way to adjudicate that type of error. I would be grateful to know your thoughts on this matter... I also wish the previous semi-finals were a 7 of 13 races. I think it provides more intrigue for the fans. Example being in the case of Patriot, perhaps they could have gotten the "tuning" of the boat re-adjusted so they could have been more competitive as the series went on. To me, they seemed to have the speed advantage prior their unfortunate mishap. Again I'd love to get your perspective. Again Thanks!!! Morgan...
Ineos “Barged” the start incurring a penalty. Then both boats crossed early incurring a penalty each which cancelled each other’s penalty out, so ineos still had to serve their remaining “Barging” penalty. Ineos had to drop 50m behind Lrpp to clear the barging penalty.
@@MozzySails Yes you've highlighted a rule that needs amended for this occurrence where both boats OCR together because it's impossible for them both to fall 50m behind each other together!
@@MozzySails Q&A01 question 2 noticeboard.acofficials.org/rrs/qa gives some help with this situation but in this case there was an additional penalty on GBR so ultimately they had to be 50m behind ITA. Plenty going on that's for sure.
@@MozzySails I guess you still don;t get it .... get another job ... you obviously are in the dark in terms of the rules and how they are applied... This perhaps is one case where the umpires made a proper call
Hugely informative and insightful as always. ☺️ The penalty system sure has some room for improvement. Hopefully they take the learnings from this challenger series and refine in time for THIS AC, rather than the next(?) Ineos are hanging on by a thinning thread and given the Sunday forecast it would take a betting man of some resolve (or maybe just damn deep pockets) to put money down on this lasting past the weekend. Go Rita, go! ⛵️🏁🇬🇧
HMSS Ineos just woke up to save themselves from total disaster and embarrassment on their way out of Prada cup.... Their goal has been achieved ..... Now we can all celebrate ....!!!!!
@@Supasarge yes, thata would be possibile, but I doubt any of them would like to go "in the unknown" (?), at least now you know what a pen means and you can program accordingly
Perfect, I would say. LR is a slightly better boat in manoeuvres and upwind and that’s always going to hurt. Tomorrow will be interesting, but I think Ben knows he is on the back foot judging by his body language.
Uhm impossible for Prada to be faster. Prada are the races, it is the Prada Cup. Which are the races to see who wins the Prada Cup, sponsored and presented by business Prada. Prior to this, it was known as the Louis Vuitton Cup, who were the sponsors and presenters.
@@TheRealMc101 My loss ??? You have to compete first before you can lose. And I am not competing mate. Nor was my country. And the closest competitor country are the ones hosting, aka the defenders. Not sure if I have in it me to root for them or not. But the defenders are not part of the Prada Cup, since this is a race for the challenger for them. So WTF are you talking about?
You're leading the NZ Press. Look it up on 'stuff' nz news. "Respected America's Cup analysts Mozzy Sails...". They have written a whole article paraphrasing your ETNZ mast step / mainsail vid.
I think rule tells about LOSE 50 mt in a relative way. This means absolute only when boats are pairing. Similar argues when LR starboard crossed Ineos in the last RR race. The situation showed how a boat could take a big advantage by breaking rule 10, causing the opponent splash down while they remaining in flight. Penalty system has to be developed better.
The Brits had 2 penalties called against them - only the OCS was [mutually] cancelled - if the umpires get it wrong the “offendee” is perfectly entitled to get clarification - the Brits would do exactly the same thing and nobody would deny them or get their noses out of shape about “normal procedures” being applied - to suggest LR were in some way wrong to do so is ‘poppy cock’ as our British friends might correctly describe it. The Italians - and fair play to them - somehow managed to turn the tables on their round-robin conquerors. They did so comprehensively, fairly & heroically. Hats off - Team Ineos seemed to take the loss like men & good sportsman initially. Here’s hoping they continue to do so.
Yes, very off to "neutralize" OCS when both boats are over early. If this is permitted, then one boat can end up with advantage, being over much earlier for example, then get no penalty b/c other is also over early. Completely unfair. Onlt recourse is to restart or require both to go around the ends of the line to re cross.
Ineos should not have barged in , LR had the start so we should not allow ineos to be able to cause a restart through barging. Secondly Ineos could easily have 360 the line mark but LR would have had to do a huge distance to 360 the far side line mark.
@@CarkeekW Well they have option to go either RC end or pin end for OCS. Otherwise, a better solution might be to just for a complete restart....but as someone pointed out, no General Recalls in AC rules.
With Ineos in the way , the near end wasn't an option. Barging to force a restart should not be a tactic given the lack of other options you pointed out.
In that scenario, why would the second boat follow them OCS? If one boat is clearly over early, all the other boat has to do is start on time and force the penalty. They both crossed at the same time, so an offset penalty is fine. Throw in the barging and failing to keep clear, not sure why people think ITUK was hard done by.
Question - was LR's nosedive just before the start as Ineos was barging a mistake or tactic. It forces Ineos to take action much faster (evade), and as a tactic could force Ineos off foils in light winds as it evades the quickly slowing LR to windward. Reminds me of fighter-jet tactics of putting on the air brakes to force opponent past you. LR went from 29kn to 21kn with no change of direction according to virtual tracker.
Did Jimmy deliberately stuff nose in to brake test Ben? Did that deliberately create a unavoidable situation. Seems that the umpires need data logging to review crew inputs to ensure no infringements.
Seems LR have better low speed capability at start and more control, in the hands of Jimmy Spithill this is a massive advantage he can exploit and does so very well. Ineos have pushed hard and apply pressure, and credit should go to Ben and team for this. Refer back to AM and even ETNZ starts, there is a massive difference. It is also breathtaking entertainment for sailing fans and probably non sailors. I love these AC boats. Unfortunately, I suspect these 2 more evenly matched boats will provide the best entertainment. Not sure this will be the case against ETNZ.
@@petertelford5338 possibly, pity sailing on course where North Head introduces more variability was cancelled due to L2 restrictions here in NZ, this at least introduced more variability and had previously led to continued excitement in RR. Unfortunately today will see D or E used again, and at risk of bias, this probably favours LR's strengths.
Great analysis, but it looks to me that LR is prepared to glide more directly into the wind as they tack upwind and also to glide more downwind as they jibe downwind. What do you think?
I have read all the comments and responses. I think that to affirm so emphatically that an advantage had not been gained (you say that it is something subjective, I imagine that your screen has few inches) when if INEOS does not enter through that gap, she would have to have sailed downwind or on the other side of the mark.... It's something that we all could see, something obvious. You also state in many comments the combination (umpire + mistakes) the Q&A 001 explains the procedure when a boat is OCS and its penalty. Seeing what happened we all understood ... how the boats will return 50mts one after another? . Neutralizing the Penalty is the most logical and fair for both. this is my opinion, thank you for the videos and your work!
I don't affirm that no advantage had been gained by the foul. My point is that advantage should be wiped by the umpires properly applying the penalty. But they turned the penalty off, let INEOS race for a further minute, then applied another penalty. I say in the video, ultimately it works out about fair. But, they way they got there was wrong and added to the confusion and detracted from the race on that first beat. Boats can return on after one another, or they can go back, rules allow for either. But, what the rules don't allow for is the penalties to be cancelled. And this is for good reason. What is one boat was OCS by 10 seconds and one by 1 second? Would those penalties then cancel?
thx man, well done and yes it would seem the starts are pretty much the key, but may be we have not seen it all yet, I am hopeful, in the sense that I would want to see some more racing beyond that. I think it is possible. Anyway, to my non expert eyes, a part from the start, in these finals it seems to be consistently the case that, ragardless of wind conditions, UK has an advantage downwind, while LR does upwind.
LR luffed Ineos and incurred OCS violation unnecessarily , forcing Ineos also into a violation. A great tactic, but surely they should have been penalised for cutting in first? They would have been entitled to do so if the line had been further away, but the first priority should have been for them not to cross early regardless off where Ineos was.
if LR HAD crossed early first, then in my view Ineos positional infringement would be irrelevant as they would be infringing on a boat which WOULD HAVE TO RETIRE 50m. But on replay, Ineos crossed first or at worst interpretation for LR, at the same time so the earlier infringement took precedence. However, it might be worth a thought that an appeal should be brought because the infringement gave Ineos at that time no advantage IN THE VIEW OF THE UMPIRE. Nah, on 2nd thoughts, that wouldn't get very far really. The real pain in the ass is that no viewpoint was taken from anyone else but Moaning Prada Spittle before the change of mind. I noted Ainslie didn't moan but instead complimented the Umpires for the work they do.
Ineos barged in at the start, there was no room. This anti-barging rule has been in place for a long time (at least as long as I fleet raced, now 50 years)
@@petertelford5338 would you please explain the way LR WOULD HAVE TO RETIRE in approx an instant in front of a barging boat? Would you please explain why IN THE VIEW OF UMPIRE Ineos had to serve an additional penalty? Oh yes umpires goes wrong.
The problem is the arbitrariness of the 50m rule. Ineos clearly served the spirit of the penalty (in terms of rectifying an ill-gotten gain) after they got behind Luna Rossa, but by the letter of the law they still hadn't cleared 50m. The umpires should think more in terms of relative advantage than absolute numbers. If a boat gets ahead unfairly, then it should have to slip back to a position of relative disadvantage-that's enough to keep the racing fair. Otherwise the leading boat can continually slow up to keep the lead under 50m and prevent the other boat from ever clearing its penalty, which is basically what Luna Rossa did here (and who can blame them).
Thats the advantage of winning a penalty. A penalty should PENALISE the offender. If the opponent can exploit the situation to make it even worse then all power to them.
Thank you so much for your analysis! Except a few years crewing dinghies many years ago I knew very little about boat racing. I well remember in early days when I informed my skipper that we were approaching another contestant with our 'right-of-way', he told me to keep quiet and when a collision was almost inevitable shouted 'Water' at the last minute and they let go all sails, losing not only to us but everyone else in the race. That is not fair racing, its not 'Cricket'! I hate the esoteric and more and more complex rules that allow a contestant to force an error. The first I was aware of was the 'offside' rule in football; savvy defenders simply ran up-field forcing the attackers into a penalty. It is ridiculous to force such fast and unstable boats into such a small course. Inevitably, just like F1, whoever gets the best start leads the whole race and makes for boring racing. BTW, I was very impressed with the AC75 until I heard that the 'chase boat' has to tow them onto the plane - ridiculous, if a boat cannot transition from displacement to planing without assistance it is not a competent vessel! Let us see them race whatever the wind, e.g. in 5 knots. Well done Luna Rossa! As I am English I am rooting for Britannia but, NZ chose the formula and it will be embarrassing if they lose this multimillion pound contest.
Another great analysis. However we should point out that start 6 should be what all starts look like if nobody made a mistake. And at this level Bens starting mistakes are inexcusable, you can easily start even and talk boatspeed if you lose.
Great analysis again. On rules I do think that it was a bit unfair as if the OD says it’s done I don’t think the other boat should be able to coach and influence the OD to give another penalty. On That Ben has a right to be annoyed. Ineos is definitely on a lower VMG upwind plus the tacking disadvantage and yes maybe it’s fractionally closer now but it’s still there and its very difficult to see with Ineos having the slower boat that LG won’t pick up the 2 more races it needs. It’s painful to admit it but Ineos might get a couple more race wins but they just are not going to catch and win from this position without a performance advantage and the gap we just had was pretty much there last chance to get that. Jimmy just won’t give it up from this position.
I have watched and rewatched the video provided by the Prada TV system. I think it worth checking because the way it seemed to me slowed down, it is in fact Luna Rossa which crossed the line virtually (there is a virtual "diamond shape" around the whole boat which must not cross boundaries, start lines early). They didn't cross together at exactly the same time virtually. Physically, Ineos overtook LR one the start line and it too crossed the line early.
The second penalty called to Ineos wasn't a recall for the OCS ones (when the light goes off the OCS penalty was done) the other penalty to Ineos was cause they entered inside the safety diamond of Luna Rossa (before the start there's no right of course, who is in front have the right of course) forcing the Italians to suddently tun to avoiding the collision, there Ineos overtook LR, so gaining an advantage. Safety Diamond described in the AC rules, page 4. Keep Clear Border A symmetrical polygon that touches the: • aft point on the media post, • 2 metres outboard from the transom corners, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule) • 2 metres outboard from the maximum beam at the foil arm region (9.950 m and 12.000 m forward of TRP), perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule), and • 2 metres outboard from the end of the bowsprit, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule).
Improving INEOS light airs performance. Have the Ineos guys tried turbulating their foils near the tip for lighter winds? (Ways include roughing up the front of the foils with some coarse sandpaper, adding gaffa tape or even some nails or wires, if its allowed!), As you covered in your video on foils, The delta planform can provide a lot of lift and goes to high angle of attack but the penalty is huge drag at high lift since the tips are stalled due to their lower RE. The idea behind the turbulator is to keep the flow stuck on at the low Reynolds numbers at the tip at low speed and give them a slightly better L/D to get up in light winds.( Same lift without having to go to such a high angle of atack on the foil.) I'm sure they will have checked out this idea but just in case they havent ... Great set of tech videos. Thanks!
I was hoping for an analysis of the second race start where Ineos was ahead. From my layman's perspective they could have made life a lot more difficult for Luna Rossa on the start line, but instead they chose their own course. Ineos won that race, do you think it was due to their decision on the start? Could they have done better?
Dont be sore losers - Luna Rossa was faster than us Brits boat, plus it was sailed better. This particular race would have made no difference to the outcome. At the end of the day the British boat was just uncompetitive agains the Italian boat. Well done Luna Rossa!!
I think making the penalty a clear and immediate course change would be much more understandable. Perhaps require that a penalized yacht immediately turn to a downwind course (> 135 TWA) for an upwind penalty or to an upwind course (
For me it was just brilliant tactics at the start by Luna Rossa and Ineos was totally caught floundering. It was obvious that LR was going to be early so Ainsley should have gone behind them and started as normal. For me it was just bad sailing where Ainsley was found wanting again.
@@ignasilopez-pinto8795 OCS = On Course Side, as Tim says. Meaning that the yacht is on the course side (i.e. the side towards the first mark) of the starting line when the start signal is made.
How could both boats serve a 50 m penalty for being over early ...? If they try to serve it at the same time they would both slow down equally and neither boat would be able to get 50m behind, and if one does it after the other it would be unfair because the first boat would lose 50m so the second boat would have to lose 100m to get 50m behind and it would essentially be the same as only one boat serving the penalty. Apart from both boats having to go back over the line which would be quite a mess I dont see any other option than to clear both penalties...
Well, the boat thay is over by less will.find it easier to dip 50m, as luna rossa did. But yes, they could end up racing each other to get 50m behind... or just go back. Thems the rules. I didnt make them. Personally, I would have the race committee do a recall in the event both boats are over. Seems the most fair thing. And would be good to watch.
The 50m penalty is confusing to audience and to the sailors, since only the umpires with their hi tech instrumentation can see if it's been served. Maybe in some future series, the umpire could remotely activate a drogue for say 30 secs or so i.e introduce a drag penalty with the more spray the better. It'd be dramatic and obvious, yet not match ending as say a 360. There'd be no question about its having been served. BTW thanks for your series @656mozzy, they're always enlightening.
Hope you are going to keep going with the analysis in the Cup match even thought you no longer have a dog in the fight. I expect ( & hope ) another umpire review is coming....
great explanations for wanna be match racers to get a grip on tactics. thank you. as far as I can tell, the best strategy is to annoy the crap out of the other captain.
Hi ! Are their 3 umpires in the control team and does it becomes a universal decision ? I think Richard Slater has a lot of input form the others. Regards.
I do understand Ben's reasoning here, it's normal that he is pushing the envelope considering how key the starts were to winning regattas with a slower boat. However it was not the first time since the Christmas races that the umpires seemed not fully in control. I'd love to know your opinion on today's call on the Port/Starboard situation at the start of Race 8, I really cannot understand how that resulted in a penalty for LR. And keep up the good work 😉
Great analysis. But please, do not say that Ben misses the match race ... Ben knows that RITA is maneuvering with more difficulty than LR and must adapt. You are Brit, remember who is Ben !
The Italian teams have come along way from the days when, to quote Ted Turner, "You could always tell when the Italians were getting ready to tack. You'd see cigarette butts flying overboard".
I was under the impression that a foul on the other boat was a relegation to 50m behind penalty, and other things- boundary penalties and the like, were 50m relative to your own predicted progress. This being a foul on another boat, I was expecting them to drop to 50m distance immediately (a short stint building boat speed with 0vmg) and try to come back to clip LR on Starboard. It seemed very odd that it was cancelled as a relative penalty. Seeing the rules as you've shown them, surely it makes more sense that the gaining an advantage penalty is 50m relative, but that was applied as an absolute- you can see the moment the graphic shows 50m behind it was cleared (even if the commentators took a while to pick up on that). It seemed like they were applying the penalty they should have applied immediately, but it was more harsh because it was delayed. In any case Ineos ought to have bluffed down before the start- the threat of them either hooking or passing at full speed behind the slow LR boat would have forced LR to bear away too, opening the gap to get onto the start line.
The umpires cancelled GBR's penalty too early, then took what they saw to be an opportunity to reinstate it. But I agree with you Mozzy, once a penalty is cleared, it has to stay cleared. The umpires have judged that the penalty was taken in accordance with the rules and the race carries on. If, a short time later, it appears that the penalised boat is in a suprisingly good position relative to their opponent, it is because either a) they got a bit of luck with the wind, b) the opponent made a mistake, or c) the umpires were too hasty in clearing the penalty. None of those should be a reason to reinstate the penalty - it makes a mockery of the whole thing. It's a bit like a football referee realising he has mistakenly awarded a penalty to one team, and then looking for any excuse to award the other team a penalty to even it up. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The second penalty called to Ineos wasn't a recall for the OCS ones (when the light goes off the OCS penalty was done) the other penalty to Ineos was cause they entered inside the safety diamond of Luna Rossa (not allowed, forcing the Italians to suddently tun to avoiding the collision, so there Ineos gain an advantage. Safety Diamond described in the AC rules, page 4. Keep Clear Border A symmetrical polygon that touches the: • aft point on the media post, • 2 metres outboard from the transom corners, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule) • 2 metres outboard from the maximum beam at the foil arm region (9.950 m and 12.000 m forward of TRP), perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule), and • 2 metres outboard from the end of the bowsprit, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule)
Do you think the 360 or maybe some kind of "double tack" to replace the current stupid penalty system, letting the boats decide when to take their penalty OR feet even by putting a penalty on the opponent?
From memory, the current penalty rule was introduced by Oracle Racing back in 34th Americas cup because it was dangerous and almost impossible to do a 360 turn in the big Cats that they were racing at the time, but it's time for a review.
@@robertcrookes2529 I totally agree, but look at a tacking battle in cats, it doesn't work att all. But as soon as the foiling took over the maneuverability of the boats got better and look at the double foil turns around the bottom gate in AC75, I bet a 360 or double-stack-tack while remaining om the foils would put the penalty back into the hands of the sailors and tacticians. And skill carrying out that penalty would be a part of the skillset needed to compete in the Cup. Just look back at old WMRT races in monohulls where good penalty killers like Peter Gilmour or Björn Hansen could win no matter he had a penalty or not.
Not at all. The second penalty to Ineos was cause they entered in the safety diamond zone of LR. Safety Diamond described in the AC rules, page 4. Keep Clear Border A symmetrical polygon that touches the: • aft point on the media post, • 2 metres outboard from the transom corners, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule) • 2 metres outboard from the maximum beam at the foil arm region (9.950 m and 12.000 m forward of TRP), perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule), and • 2 metres outboard from the end of the bowsprit, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule).
How is it so hard to understand the rules and penalties that were issued? I think you got your UK specs on here. Ben KNOWS it was a second penalty and it was HIS crazy action at the start line. He is using gamesmanship on the comms. He knows he has to be behind LR at a cross (and therefore lose the right) which he knows he can't do or race is lost.... He deserved everything and more. You can't bully your way in to a space because you are desperate. Luckily LR avoided AND splashed down just to avoid Ainsle barging in between them and the buoy. SMH. Can't believe you think it has anything to do with umpires. It was Ainsle all over. As for LR, of course they are going to use that opportunity to make sure they get ahead in an advantageous place, not on the left in less pressure and no RoW...???
Regarding the first race and the comment at: 6:15 "You can see Ben's annoyed." I'm sorry, but I couldn't see it! If Ben was truly annoyed and memorized, then understood the rulebook, he'd protest and probably got the penalty cleared. He didn't do it, did he? Sorry Ben, I'm your most fervent fan, but fair is fair. Jimmy beat you there. When he was annoyed, I could clearly "see" (meaning hear) it on the comms! Okay, Ben's busy, I understand (but so was Jimmy). How about anybody else? Giles? Anyone? Anyway, a beautiful race day. I'm so enjoying it, it's just silly. I'm feeling almost guilty. All that fun for free!
Ben couldn't have been cleared, cause the second penalty wasn't for the OCS but cause Ineos entered dangerously inside the safety diamond zone of LR. Safety Diamond described in the AC rules, page 4. Keep Clear Border A symmetrical polygon that touches the: • aft point on the media post, • 2 metres outboard from the transom corners, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule) • 2 metres outboard from the maximum beam at the foil arm region (9.950 m and 12.000 m forward of TRP), perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule), and • 2 metres outboard from the end of the bowsprit, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule). The second penalty to Ineos was fair and square, Umpries didn't did nothing wrong.
@@solinvictus1234 "the second penalty wasn't for" It doesn't matter for what the penalty was. It mattered that Ineos tried to stay behind, while Luna Rosa made it exceedingly difficult. There is a case in the rulebook for that behavior, apparently. If that's true, Ineos at the very least should have tried to protest it. "The second penalty to Ineos was fair and square" I accept that. It's the behavior of LR, who tried clearing this penalty difficult, which is in question here. I remember the comms, where it was rather obvious, that Ineos were not on top of their game there. Something like (I quote from memory): "We are behind! [as requested] What more do you want us to do?!" And the umpires answered: "You need extra 10m to clear the penalty." What if Ben did what Jimmy did? What if he protested the LR for intentionally lagging and obstructing the penalty clearing? If the author of the video is correct, they did effed it up. Sorry. (But then, if he's not, they didn't, so I don't know.)
@@bakters The penalties meters aren't counted using the eyes, both boats and umpries boath have GPS on them, that are saved as a telemetry, no way for the umpries to modify the penalty distance or "cheating" on it. As the boundary limits are GPS/IR sensors tracked, if you go over the boundaries there's no space for a mistake, you goes over. So if Ineos slowed only 40 meters, it was 40 meters and -10 was required.
@@solinvictus1234 "no way for the umpries to modify the penalty distance or "cheating" on it." The author said something else. Namely, he's found a rule, which takes into account the other boat trying to obscure the execution of the penalty. Then the penalized boat has a right to protest it and hopefully get the penalty cleared. The protest never came. That's what I'm complaining here about. "So if Ineos slowed only 40 meters, it was 40 meters and -10 was required." They tried to do it over several tacks. LR could have went their way toward the top mark and the penalty would've been cleared the first time Ineos bore away. But LR didn't do it. They tacked simultaneously and bore away too. So Ineos had to try again and again. They had the right to the protest, as far as I understand it. Your objections are correct and valid, but that isn't the crux of the matter I'm raising here. Basically, Ineos screwed up by not, at the very least, trying to protest the Luna Rosa team. If the protest wasn't granted, that's tough, but at least they tried!
Loving your commentary, as a -beginner sailor I wouldn't have noticed half of what you talk about. Could you do a video on wind shadow and turbulence to explain why its so hard for the boat behind to pass?
INEOS is toast. I watched both entire races on the livewire computer view, following both yachts. Key takeaway: LR is ailing a higher angle at a slighter higher speed upwind. INEOS can’t fight that. 2d Takeaway: INEOS was losing 20+ meters on nearly every tack exchange. LR Is getting through 90% of tacks faster, and getting to max speed faster. But Ben knows LR can sail higher and faster upwind.
Trade off on the jib. Not good upwind. Jib gives slightly better downwind speed and angle. I hate that maxi they use. The biggest surprise/sadness was that there was no new sail plan for Ineos after the Round Robins. I think they had run out of money.
Thanks Mozzy, interesting analysis as always. Do you think Ben and the team may go with a really aggressive (risky) sail and foil setup? Opting for boat speed over stability and simply trusting in the boat crew to keep it wet side down? . . I would think Sir Jim would support that approach. Being knocked out when you have tried and given everything is truely honourable and memorable .
You are too clever to support your idea regarding the penalty. Theyfrom what I understood three penalties one for ocs cleared with the same ocs of LR. The second just one sec after the start before the first ineos tack and the third one at the first cross.
@@johnandrews2853 I like very much the guys of mozzy but this time I was disappointed by the justification of the penalties I found them a little for Ineos that is understandable but still in disappointingly.
If both OCS can't get cancelled, according to the rule then LR has finished their regatta with a penalty and should be protest against the jury and the regatta should be repeated. To say the least.
@@ignasilopez-pinto8795 the ocs has been deleted for both of the teams. There three penalties for uk and one for LR. That is it. No regata to be repeated. Lets watch regata 7 and 8 and discuss about them. 😉
I think that the fact that GBR was penalized for a windward leeward foul even though they never really got that close IMO , illustrates perfectly why these boats have ruined true match racing in the AC. I dare anyone to go back and watch the races between Alinghi and NZ, or any of the 12 meter races, and say that the racing wasn't much better. These boats are exciting only to those that never match raced. No real pre start battles, tacking duels, sail changes, etc. Shame.
My words. Those boats are spectacular, no doubt about that. But the racing itself is somewhat boring. It is all about boat speed alone. Although I have to admit it got better then with the catamarans. With the catamarans it was: Does anybody get a hook in the prestart? No? Ok, then lets get into driving on the highway.
You could well be right. I also think many people watching are doing so due to lockdown. A predictable end is not a formula for sporting excitement. Already the views are massively down due to the predictability.
We must be watching different races. I've seen lots of pre-start strategy, smart rule play, luffing, tacking duels, smart wind shift picking, poor sail choices and mark rounding. No spinnaker trawls, I'll give you that. I had expected the racing to be much less competitive, but have been pleasantly surprised.
@@gpsfinancial6988 Did you used to watch previous ACs prior to the catamaran era? 5 minutes of knock down, drag out battles that set the stage for hundreds of tacks and jibes. Now its one conversion, and for the most part a time in distance race to the line. I still watch, but foiling boats are not anywhere near as exciting for match races.
@@listeningto8371 I think the car analogy is flawed. For it to work, there would have to be a whole bunch of engine controls to be managed by the driver, not just a throttle. Like: valve overlap, injection timing, boost pressure, etc etc. And that's just to make you analogy cover what the sail trimmers are doing. The flight controllers are manipulating the (metaphorical) suspension geometry and the air foils. About the only part of the analogy which kinda works is the steering wheel and the gearshift (mode selection) but even that second one is a lot more nuanced than in the car situation. What I'm saying is that there's no way for us to know if INEOS have already got their foot to the floor, by optimising all of those things. It seems unlikely on the evidence. What is likely is that LR have got closer to that situation, but who would know for sure even where they are.
Here's a thing. If it is an even score (5/5 or 6/6)at the close of play on 24 February (it might be too windy to sail) then Ineos win because they were the last to win a race? Wonder if Jimmy would ram Ainslie off the track at 5/4?
@@jumperstartful As I understand it, the green light is just an indicator: you are approaching the course boundary. It starts blinking at some distance and changes to solid green when you reached the boundary. The red light is for penalties
Yeah, you could argue that. I really dislike the 'gain and advantage bit'. Its needed under normal rules, but here the umpire should hd them back until 50m behind and then game on. If ben gains after the umpire has said game on, how can thay then be flagged? Umpire mistakes this one.
With both yachts over the line and the complexity of who gained an Advantage on both sides it should have been a restart. No question. And that’s the real error made by the OD. I couldn’t believe that they didn’t bring them back.
Am I wrong in thinking the video shows the "too close" infringement by Ineos BEFORE both LR and Ineos cross the start line? Please tell me so because if LR corssed the start line early (as did Ineos) then Ineos cannot cause an infringement by getting too close to LR when it is the duty of LR to move 50 metres back (and also the duty of Ineos to move 50 m back).
I still don't understand and how Luna Rossa's start can be perfect when they were early. Isn't arriving at the line on time fundamental? Luna Rossa gybed and made a timed run to the right-hand end of the starting line. Before they arrived at the line they luffed Ineos and closed the gap. They could only do this by deliberately starting early instead of running down the line. And by doing so they compromised the ability of Ineos to manoeuvre. It was also quite dangerous. If the board comes into contact with the crew of the other boat there could be serious injury. They were 3 seconds early. That's quite a big margin I appreciate what you're saying about the over the line penalties not being able to cancel each other out under the rules, and that the race should have been restarted. That makes sense. I just don't understand how it can be legal for Luna Rossa to luff up and close the gap for Ineos Team UK when they can only do this by crossing the line even earlier than they would if they had kept their course. It's a deliberate infringement of a rule in order to gain an advantage and it's dangerous driving. Which could be classed as unsportsmanlike behaviour. What do I know. The only boats I have raced are Lasers and Contessa 32. I've got no match racing experience. But it doesn't make sense to me.
LR had priority (enough advance and wind on the same side) so they were free to manoeuver to their liking, I think that's the only rule that applies here ? They are 'free' to cross the line when they want (and get a penalty if it's too early). Ineos should have slowed instead of forcing its way, this way only LR would get the penalty, but this Spithill is a real devil, and Aisle was triggered... This kind of situations confirms my mistrust against the world of regattas, some rules are quite loose when boats positions change constantly, it's sometimes impossible to tell exactly which boat has priority on the same tack, and the greater bully often wins when there is a doubt.
The penalty system does seem kind of absurd, at least with a 360 you've either done your penalty or you haven't - would a lighter penalty e.g. a "270" - so going upwind you have to turn downwind, gybe and come back on the other tack, be suitable? A full 360 would almost certainly be race over with these boats.
great fan of your technical insights and explanations. Unrelated to the race 5 start ... why are mainsails adding area at the head ? Why aren't mainsails more elliptical ?
Maybe same aero reason that airplane wings aren't normally eliptical, plus they would foul the runners, plus the mainsail regulations probably prevent it.
@@kukuc96 Yep, I agree. At the VMG of these boats a 360 would cost several hundred metres. If you tried to go from a tack straight into a gybe, or vice versa, you’d probably come off the foils. I agree with the OP that if both boats are over it should be a general recall.
@@DarrynMc01 Then they should have "round the ends" rule...OCS means having to go around one end of the line and cross correctly. In this case of both OCS boats, both would need to do a round the end restart....negating both penalties means one boat could be WAY over early, and get a huge advantage over other barely over early...penalty negated and you are sitting pretty!
Analysing the penalty rule is interesting bur irrelevant. Ineos was out sailed and out designed. Can't believe that after all that development the Ineos main at the foot looked like an old curtain draped across the boom where as LR's main was perfectly set down to the deck.I did catch Paul Goodison say that LR's boom may have been located under the deck. Is this feasable?
Yes, they're are some leaked images. But, it doesn't really function like a boom (control of clew), so is more like an elaborated traveler. It's pretty much as I described in the mainsail controls video.
Good analysis. But. Why at the point when they got to shoot the gap the gap existed and Lr was dipping. When Lr come up ineos respond immediately they come up and tack. Give the boat must have time to keep clean why was it a penalty.
Am I wrong to see that LR were slowing down as Rita was trying to drop their penalty of 50m, thus making it impossible to wash it out - ?trying to get Rita off their foils maybe? ? Whether they were or not - would that be a legal move? Ref 2:46 and your commentary about the tacking.
No one could do that on purpose cause the risk of drop off of your foils are too high, so if your opponent is clearing the penalty you just want to goes faster to gain meters + that 50 meters of pnalty. For sure LR suffered a jump of wind pressure that switched side on the Ineos side of the field.
In every other sport I can think of, once you apply the penalty (a kick, yardage, time in the sin-bin), the slate is wiped clean. In sailing, if you split tack to let the non-penalized boat pull ahead the required distance, and then accidentally benefit from a lift the non-penalized boat doesn't get, you can be penalized again? It's as if, in football, one team is awarded a penalty kick, hits the woodwork. the ball rebounds to the other end and the penalized team scores (hello, Brentford). Applying AC rules, the penalized team should be given another penalty because it enjoyed an accidental advantage from the first infraction. What am I missing?
Buddy how often does that happen in football? Pretty much never. Barging in sailing is very common, and very illegal. if someone is able to barge and make a gain by going to the right side, getting you that first shift, then you might as well take the penalty and barge when ever that side is favored. A shift in this ac event can make you gain 100s of meters, 50 meters is nothing for these boats.
The penalty is to give 50m to the opponent. How is it possible to gain from a penalty. The penalty being wiped clear was an umpire mistake. But Ben is right to annoyed thay is was re applied later up the beat after the judge had already cleared it.
A literal reading of 44.4(c), "If a yacht has a penalty and the other yacht is penalized", suggests that this rule does not apply to simultaneous penalties ... neither yacht had a penalty at the time that the other yacht was penalised (smile). If so, the business about the rule not applying to OCS penalties can be ignored, since the rule doesn't apply in the first place. The problem for an umpire is that 44.4(c) is the only rule which deals with offsetting or neutralising penalties. If 44.4(c) doesn't apply, there is no mechanism for simultaneous penalties to be offset, and there is no way to fairly require each boat to slow down so that the other boat can get 50m ahead. A sensible umpire therefore calls "Penalties offset", and leaves it to either boat to request redress for an umpire decision that was not based on any rule. In case this seems a little far fetched, consider a boundary penalty given simultaneously to each boat, when one on the right and one on the left both mess up their tack or gybe by half a metre at exactly the same time (they were racing neck and neck, after all).... This rule about offsetting penalties in an AC75 match race is curious for another reason. Because a penalty cannot be carried (it must be taken immediately, "the penalized yacht shall act immediately to reduce her VMG / VMC"), there is almost never going to be a situation where the rule as written can sensibly apply. "If a yacht has a penalty [...]", she must act immediately (or face a further penalty or a DSQ). And while acting immediately, if "the other yacht is penalized", does that mean she can stop taking her penalty and resume racing? Wait, what about the ground she lost in the meantime while the umpires needed time to make a decision? So a rule about penalties offsetting is really only a sensible rule when an allowance is made for umpire decision time. That is, a penalty need not be taken immediately, but only after the umpires declare the incident 'processed', so it is at that point that an allocated penalty becomes due for immediate action.
True about the literal reading. Clearly not the intent, but could be argued. However, I don't follow that there isn't a fair way for the boat to get 50 m behind each other. Because, clearly, it's then just a race to get behind the other boat. And in all this they also have the other option to return and start properly. So I wouldn't agree that the only sensible option is for the umpire to offset. Completely agree about your point about offsetting not really having a purpose where penalties can't be carried. The other part that serves no purpose is the 'gained advantage' when the penalty is to go behind the other yacht (i see the purpose for just losing 50m relative). Surely if the umpire does their job and puts you 50m behind, then what advantage could there be?
@@MozzySails "don't follow that there isn't a fair way for the boat to get 50 m behind each other" Well, I don't think two boats can each be 50 m behind the other. If one is indeed 50 m behind, the other must be 50 m in front.... Let's take a simultaneous boundary penalty call to keep it simple, and let's imagine that the boats are indeed neck and neck. So, both boats must act immediately to get 50 m behind. Both slow down, and nope, neither falls behind sufficiently. Rather than fall off their foils, both now turn back, and racing towards the mark they rounded earlier, they are still abreast. At some point, one boat manages to get 50 m behind. Their penalty is taken, so they can go back to racing. The other boat, however, must now wait until they are overtaken and, only when 50 m behind, can get back to racing in turn. Unfair, I think, because both boats, each having earned a penalty, should be equally disadvantaged, but not so, one will 'win' the race to the rear and will then gain an advantage.
@@lestergilbert5224 no, they can't be simultaneously 50 m behind each other. I am not arguing this is a good rule by any stretch! But one boat can be 50m behind and then the other is, so taking it in turn. In an extreme case this could lead to a race backwards around the course. In reality, what happens is that one boat ducks first, then the other does and the advantage goes to the boat that ducked 50 first. But you're right, it's a bit unfair, but I guess it favours prompt exoneration of ones penalties?
@@ScottSummerill If you and the other boat are both OCS, I guess you should turn back and restart, and hope that the other boat doesn't. After your restart, the other boat has to allow you to get 50 m ahead, so, other things being equal, you've won the start rather nicely. Curious that neither boat seems to have game-tested this scenario beforehand and written it into their playbook.
You are wrong in your assessment of penalty lights at start - rules are same for all and explained well below by Sol. However I agree is messy and would much prefer they return to the 360 rule.
I dont believe so. Umpire calls OCS neutralised (wrongly). But he is clear INEOS still have a penalty(for W/L). INEOS light stays on and LR light goes off. Giles confirms this to Ben that still have a penalty. Then, about 20 second later the light comes off and Giles tells Ben that the penalty is clear. Then another minute later, after prompting by Jimmy the umpire gives a second and new penalty for gaining an advantage. Again, he is very clear this is a new penalty.
The boats have gone through massive evolution over the last decade... The way they start the races has failed to adapt with the new boat speeds and formats, this NEEDS to change! A race that’s won/lost before they even cross the start line is going to have a detrimental effect to the future fan-base of this modern style of sailing. Imagine F1 started this way!? It’s daft and we should not keep such silly procedures simply based on historic ceremony... Especially if it detracts from the actual race.
Thank goodness you said this! I have been trying to say it in as short and clear a fashion as you use for weeks now. Once a sport is predictable it is dead duck for the public. On top of that the internal painful small minded politics. Have you noticed how the number of clicks/users/comments is down to about 1/8 of other posts not just on this site but others like Justin Mitchell, Stuff, planet sail, etc. I think people have been turned off by the start being the only determinant. Why watch for 25 minutes when it is over in the first 2 minutes? The 9 passes race was an oddity.
I disagree, although I am equally frustrated by, win the start win the race. I think the issue is the coarse size as it doesn’t allow time in separation due to there speed over water. The starts add an element that the designers may not have factored in. Maneuverability. F1 is all about the fastest car. AC is about the fastest boat, but it also needs to adapt to a wide range of conditions and respond to the skills of another crew. It’s match racing. The starts not the problem, unless you keep losing it.
In the RR Italians had new foils (fitted for that race) to their boats and they was untrained to that set-up, in fact they did a lot of mistakes in that RR, still they lost with a small time. That for Ineos was a Pyrric victory i think
These videos are the rare sort where you can give a thumbs-up before you watch them, because you know they will always be very good.
Thank you Mozzy - you are adding a lot to the Americas Cup.
it's over, congratulations to Team UK for fighting fiercely.
Luna rossa was simply superior in all wind and sea current conditions.
7-1 is an unappealable sentence.
Standards fantastic up date analysis, been waiting for this for few hours.
The second penalty called to Ineos wasn't a recall for the OCS ones (when the light goes off the OCS penalty was done) the other penalty to Ineos was cause they entered inside the safety diamond of Luna Rossa (not allowed), forcing the Italians to suddently tun to avoiding the collision, so there Ineos gain an advantage.
Safety Diamond described in the AC rules, page 4.
Keep Clear Border A symmetrical polygon that touches the:
• aft point on the media post,
• 2 metres outboard from the transom corners, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the
AC75 Class Rule)
• 2 metres outboard from the maximum beam at the foil arm region (9.950 m and 12.000 m
forward of TRP), perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule), and
• 2 metres outboard from the end of the bowsprit, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the
AC75 Class Rule).
So the Umpries was quite right at my advice.
Seen you post this a few times. There is no confusion over what the penalty was for. The confusion was that the penalty was cleared on the INEOS boat, then an additional penalty was added one minute later (after Jimmy prompts) for gaining an advantage. If the umpire had properly waited until INEOS were 50m behind before clearing the inital penalty, then the would be no confusion.
Additionally, the umpire gets the call on OCS penalties neutralising completely wrong. This adds to the confusions.
@@MozzySails That confusion was explained by umpries themselves, as you know there's umpries on sea with boats and umpries on the dock cabin as "TMO" the issue was that for some reasons the TMO umpries had no disposal of the immages and they was warned of the Ineos second infraction from the boats umpries after the Spithil complain. Or at leats is what i know regarding the matter, but overall they have appled the rules in a good way, with a little bit of confusion but with this fast boat is never easy.
Regarding the OCS neutralising i agree, buth if i not mistake they could neutralize or they couldn't, the neutralization is mandatory? I don't remember that.
@@solinvictus1234 if the umpire flags it as clear. Then what advantage is gained? The whole point of these penalties is the offending boat gets behind and th umpire tells them when they have achieved that. That's Ben's point in the press conference. The umpire (mistakenly) says they are clear, but the later penalizing them for making a gain. The truth is, INEOS didnt gain, just the umpires cleared the penalty early.
The OCS neutralisation is a clear mistake and there is no facility for it in th rules. The reason for this is pretty obvious.
When the leading boat gets to pick the shifts and the side, that's enough advantage in most cases to hold their lead (given a degree of wind variability). At this level, both boats are good enough to exercise that advantage from the leading position; it's enough for Ineos to win the odd race. But LRPP is faster tacking and equal on a straight line, and has proven the better starter. Ineos might get another win in the series, but it will be LRPP going to the America's Cup barring unforeseen events.
Hope you have christal sphere tellin you the truth, pal.
Correct
surely it depends upon weather conditions - good sporting weather would put Ineos in a strong position to challenge and then we would see how cool the other team really are. It is still not over yet. Even in light airs Ineos looks faster downwind.
@Glenn Watson Match racing in open ocean?? Wtf?? Currents, tides, and wind shifts are critical pieces of match racing, not to mention the open ocean would suck for crash boats and setting marks.
thanks for mentioning that the larger jib of ineos is what always seemed to give them better downward speed. the tv announcers seemed to miss this important point. well done
Loving the analysis and commentary - keep it coming!
Without doubt the best analysis of the AC on the web. Technical enough for those that know a bit about the sport, but basic enough for someone with a passing interest.
And very well informed as well as explained. the AC should pay you for adding value so lucidly
Nice summary. I agree on the penalty front, it didn’t make a lot of sense but as you say I guess the result was right. I wonder what would haven happened if Ineos had taken a dip behind LR in the first race, which may have seen LR still OCS and Ineos would then have been able to get advantage of the penalty against LR.
In this case LR surely would not have luffed to the line. INOS would have been in the downwash and slowed down.
But - What I wondered - why did LR not just simply dip back over the line and then start correctly. They were set up in a very good position to do that and it wouldn't have costs much. It would have left them with an OCS penalty on INOS which forced them to let them pass anyway. Thats what I would have done
I was screaming at the laptop for INEOS to duck them as they were both early. Maybe it would have worked, may be not, but at least they would have been in control of their own destiny, instead of an umpires' questionable judgment. I guess its always easy from under the duvet 🤐
The second penalty called to Ineos wasn't a recall for the OCS ones (when the light goes off the OCS penalty was done) the other penalty to Ineos was cause they entered inside the safety diamond of Luna Rossa (not allowed), forcing the Italians to suddently tun to avoiding the collision, so there Ineos gain an advantage and for that the umpries gived another penalty to them.
Safety Diamond described in the AC rules, page 4.
Keep Clear Border A symmetrical polygon that touches the:
• aft point on the media post,
• 2 metres outboard from the transom corners, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the
AC75 Class Rule)
• 2 metres outboard from the maximum beam at the foil arm region (9.950 m and 12.000 m
forward of TRP), perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule), and
• 2 metres outboard from the end of the bowsprit, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the
AC75 Class Rule).
You should be on the commentary team. Despite their experience it seems the presenters haven't done enough homework on the rules specific to this competition to be able to discuss penalties from a position of knowledge. Thanks for your clarifications.
Agreed - neither the domestic nor international commentary were able to shed any light on the situation at all during the live race.
This maybe why it took the Mozzy boys so long to do this video! Fantastic videos and analysis. Here's hoping we win the next 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 starts :)
The Aussie coverage interviewed the umpire who was pretty clear cut on the how and why.
Thanks for doing these Videos! I look forward to every one!
You do such a great job of breaking down all the competition subtleties in an easy to digest form, especially for a simpleton like me! :-|
Question-
Since the Umpire made a bad call, adding confusion to Ineos race tactics (where they were provided a "green okay") Can Ineos protest the race results based on Umpire's mistake and lack of clarity? (even though) the penalty was just. I think the impacts ultimately changed the race outcome.
Also If that type of protest were upheld, would Ineos be able to force a "Do-over" of the race? What are the race boats options for logging an "Official Complaint" as it impacted the results?
I thought I remembered in previous America's Cup races, if the race start was "Jumped" that either or both boats were required to go back and cross the starting line again. (I could be wrong...) I think that is a more fair way to adjudicate that type of error. I would be grateful to know your thoughts on this matter...
I also wish the previous semi-finals were a 7 of 13 races. I think it provides more intrigue for the fans. Example being in the case of Patriot, perhaps they could have gotten the "tuning" of the boat re-adjusted so they could have been more competitive as the series went on. To me, they seemed to have the speed advantage prior their unfortunate mishap. Again I'd love to get your perspective.
Again Thanks!!!
Morgan...
Ineos “Barged” the start incurring a penalty. Then both boats crossed early incurring a penalty each which cancelled each other’s penalty out, so ineos still had to serve their remaining “Barging” penalty. Ineos had to drop 50m behind Lrpp to clear the barging penalty.
But, the OCS penalties do not cancel. Thays pretty much the whole point of this video.
@@MozzySails umpires job is to keep the race, fair as you said a penalty to ineos was fair enough despite the two boats ocs.
@@MozzySails Yes you've highlighted a rule that needs amended for this occurrence where both boats OCR together because it's impossible for them both to fall 50m behind each other together!
@@MozzySails Q&A01 question 2 noticeboard.acofficials.org/rrs/qa gives some help with this situation but in this case there was an additional penalty on GBR so ultimately they had to be 50m behind ITA. Plenty going on that's for sure.
@@MozzySails I guess you still don;t get it .... get another job ... you obviously are in the dark in terms of the rules and how they are applied... This perhaps is one case where the umpires made a proper call
Hugely informative and insightful as always. ☺️
The penalty system sure has some room for improvement. Hopefully they take the learnings from this challenger series and refine in time for THIS AC, rather than the next(?)
Ineos are hanging on by a thinning thread and given the Sunday forecast it would take a betting man of some resolve (or maybe just damn deep pockets) to put money down on this lasting past the weekend.
Go Rita, go! ⛵️🏁🇬🇧
HMSS Ineos just woke up to save themselves from total disaster and embarrassment on their way out of Prada cup.... Their goal has been achieved .....
Now we can all celebrate ....!!!!!
That won't be possible, I think, by the rules system and the agreement already reached on them. But I surely hope they rethink this for the future
@@Fr3DDy73 thanks Federico! Altho if the Defender & CoR are in the AC, their alteration by mutual agreement on anything might seem possible(?)
@@Supasarge yes, thata would be possibile, but I doubt any of them would like to go "in the unknown" (?), at least now you know what a pen means and you can program accordingly
@@Fr3DDy73 Congratulations LRPP 🥳 the best team won 🙌🏻
Perfect, I would say. LR is a slightly better boat in manoeuvres and upwind and that’s always going to hurt. Tomorrow will be interesting, but I think Ben knows he is on the back foot judging by his body language.
If Ineos wins another race today they’ll have a pretty good comeback chance. As the winds for Monday/Tuesday NZT are much stronger.
@@Joshdavies146 dreaming it's cheaper
@@Joshdavies146 Let's hope!
@@daves1412 Hope it's last think we (beat) loose hihihi
Frankly, Prada looks to be a bit faster and slightly better crewed. Right now Prada deserves to win but every day brings new possibilities.
Uhm impossible for Prada to be faster. Prada are the races, it is the Prada Cup. Which are the races to see who wins the Prada Cup, sponsored and presented by business Prada. Prior to this, it was known as the Louis Vuitton Cup, who were the sponsors and presenters.
@@kevinfisher1345 I'm so sorry for your loss
@@TheRealMc101 My loss ??? You have to compete first before you can lose. And I am not competing mate. Nor was my country. And the closest competitor country are the ones hosting, aka the defenders. Not sure if I have in it me to root for them or not. But the defenders are not part of the Prada Cup, since this is a race for the challenger for them. So WTF are you talking about?
@@kevinfisher1345 I'm really really sorry.
@@kevinfisher1345 you do reslise that full name of Italian team is "Luna Rossa Prada Pirelli" and it is litterally owned by Prada's CEO, right?
Luna Rossa had a mean 2 knot vmg higher than ineos. That's all, faster boat, best start
You're leading the NZ Press. Look it up on 'stuff' nz news. "Respected America's Cup analysts Mozzy Sails...". They have written a whole article paraphrasing your ETNZ mast step / mainsail vid.
Yeah just seen! "Respected", who knew?! 😄
@@MozzySails Now you're 'respected' they should be paying you for content!
I think rule tells about LOSE 50 mt in a relative way. This means absolute only when boats are pairing.
Similar argues when LR starboard crossed Ineos in the last RR race. The situation showed how a boat could take a big advantage by breaking rule 10, causing the opponent splash down while they remaining in flight. Penalty system has to be developed better.
so... the umpires tried to make as if the 2nd penalty was paid but Jimmy called their BS? (actually Bruni told Jimmy to call it)
I have just seen your video, and I made the decision to subscribe your channel. Your analysis is clear and sharp. Thank you
No denying that LRPP looks like a well oiled machine.
Luna Rossa is fantastic
🇮🇹
The Brits had 2 penalties called against them - only the OCS was [mutually] cancelled - if the umpires get it wrong the “offendee” is perfectly entitled to get clarification - the Brits would do exactly the same thing and nobody would deny them or get their noses out of shape about “normal procedures” being applied - to suggest LR were in some way wrong to do so is ‘poppy cock’ as our British friends might correctly describe it. The Italians - and fair play to them - somehow managed to turn the tables on their round-robin conquerors. They did so comprehensively, fairly & heroically. Hats off - Team Ineos seemed to take the loss like men & good sportsman initially. Here’s hoping they continue to do so.
Yes, very off to "neutralize" OCS when both boats are over early. If this is permitted, then one boat can end up with advantage, being over much earlier for example, then get no penalty b/c other is also over early. Completely unfair. Onlt recourse is to restart or require both to go around the ends of the line to re cross.
Here Here!! General recall ??
Ineos should not have barged in , LR had the start so we should not allow ineos to be able to cause a restart through barging. Secondly Ineos could easily have 360 the line mark but LR would have had to do a huge distance to 360 the far side line mark.
@@CarkeekW Well they have option to go either RC end or pin end for OCS. Otherwise, a better solution might be to just for a complete restart....but as someone pointed out, no General Recalls in AC rules.
With Ineos in the way , the near end wasn't an option. Barging to force a restart should not be a tactic given the lack of other options you pointed out.
In that scenario, why would the second boat follow them OCS? If one boat is clearly over early, all the other boat has to do is start on time and force the penalty.
They both crossed at the same time, so an offset penalty is fine.
Throw in the barging and failing to keep clear, not sure why people think ITUK was hard done by.
Question - was LR's nosedive just before the start as Ineos was barging a mistake or tactic. It forces Ineos to take action much faster (evade), and as a tactic could force Ineos off foils in light winds as it evades the quickly slowing LR to windward. Reminds me of fighter-jet tactics of putting on the air brakes to force opponent past you. LR went from 29kn to 21kn with no change of direction according to virtual tracker.
You've made it big now, stuff had an article referencing your video on mainsail design - of course they don't go as far as linking to your video.
Did Jimmy deliberately stuff nose in to brake test Ben? Did that deliberately create a unavoidable situation. Seems that the umpires need data logging to review crew inputs to ensure no infringements.
Seems LR have better low speed capability at start and more control, in the hands of Jimmy Spithill this is a massive advantage he can exploit and does so very well. Ineos have pushed hard and apply pressure, and credit should go to Ben and team for this. Refer back to AM and even ETNZ starts, there is a massive difference. It is also breathtaking entertainment for sailing fans and probably non sailors. I love these AC boats. Unfortunately, I suspect these 2 more evenly matched boats will provide the best entertainment. Not sure this will be the case against ETNZ.
The starts are but the procession thereafter is making a lot of people turn off.
@@petertelford5338 possibly, pity sailing on course where North Head introduces more variability was cancelled due to L2 restrictions here in NZ, this at least introduced more variability and had previously led to continued excitement in RR. Unfortunately today will see D or E used again, and at risk of bias, this probably favours LR's strengths.
Great analysis, but it looks to me that LR is prepared to glide more directly into the wind as they tack upwind and also to glide more downwind as they jibe downwind. What do you think?
I have read all the comments and responses. I think that to affirm so emphatically that an advantage had not been gained (you say that it is something subjective, I imagine that your screen has few inches) when if INEOS does not enter through that gap, she would have to have sailed downwind or on the other side of the mark.... It's something that we all could see, something obvious.
You also state in many comments the combination (umpire + mistakes) the Q&A 001 explains the procedure when a boat is OCS and its penalty. Seeing what happened we all understood ... how the boats will return 50mts one after another? . Neutralizing the Penalty is the most logical and fair for both.
this is my opinion, thank you for the videos and your work!
I don't affirm that no advantage had been gained by the foul. My point is that advantage should be wiped by the umpires properly applying the penalty. But they turned the penalty off, let INEOS race for a further minute, then applied another penalty. I say in the video, ultimately it works out about fair. But, they way they got there was wrong and added to the confusion and detracted from the race on that first beat.
Boats can return on after one another, or they can go back, rules allow for either. But, what the rules don't allow for is the penalties to be cancelled. And this is for good reason. What is one boat was OCS by 10 seconds and one by 1 second? Would those penalties then cancel?
thx man, well done and yes it would seem the starts are pretty much the key, but may be we have not seen it all yet, I am hopeful, in the sense that I would want to see some more racing beyond that. I think it is possible. Anyway, to my non expert eyes, a part from the start, in these finals it seems to be consistently the case that, ragardless of wind conditions, UK has an advantage downwind, while LR does upwind.
As Dalton said of SF, the boat that won was the boat that continued to innovate. TUK surged and stopped, LR just kept on.
Great analysis - nice one!
LR luffed Ineos and incurred OCS violation unnecessarily , forcing Ineos also into a violation. A great tactic, but surely they should have been penalised for cutting in first? They would have been entitled to do so if the line had been further away, but the first priority should have been for them not to cross early regardless off where Ineos was.
Even if (and I disagree), the second thief in a robbery is he innocent?
if LR HAD crossed early first, then in my view Ineos positional infringement would be irrelevant as they would be infringing on a boat which WOULD HAVE TO RETIRE 50m. But on replay, Ineos crossed first or at worst interpretation for LR, at the same time so the earlier infringement took precedence. However, it might be worth a thought that an appeal should be brought because the infringement gave Ineos at that time no advantage IN THE VIEW OF THE UMPIRE. Nah, on 2nd thoughts, that wouldn't get very far really. The real pain in the ass is that no viewpoint was taken from anyone else but Moaning Prada Spittle before the change of mind. I noted Ainslie didn't moan but instead complimented the Umpires for the work they do.
Ineos barged in at the start, there was no room. This anti-barging rule has been in place for a long time (at least as long as I fleet raced, now 50 years)
@@petertelford5338 would you please explain the way LR WOULD HAVE TO RETIRE in approx an instant in front of a barging boat? Would you please explain why IN THE VIEW OF UMPIRE Ineos had to serve an additional penalty? Oh yes umpires goes wrong.
@@zaphodify I do not think you understood what was written.
The problem is the arbitrariness of the 50m rule. Ineos clearly served the spirit of the penalty (in terms of rectifying an ill-gotten gain) after they got behind Luna Rossa, but by the letter of the law they still hadn't cleared 50m. The umpires should think more in terms of relative advantage than absolute numbers. If a boat gets ahead unfairly, then it should have to slip back to a position of relative disadvantage-that's enough to keep the racing fair. Otherwise the leading boat can continually slow up to keep the lead under 50m and prevent the other boat from ever clearing its penalty, which is basically what Luna Rossa did here (and who can blame them).
Thats the advantage of winning a penalty. A penalty should PENALISE the offender. If the opponent can exploit the situation to make it even worse then all power to them.
Amazing video. Thanks so much
Thanks again for another great analysis. Cheers 🍻
Thank you so much for your analysis! Except a few years crewing dinghies many years ago I knew very little about boat racing. I well remember in early days when I informed my skipper that we were approaching another contestant with our 'right-of-way', he told me to keep quiet and when a collision was almost inevitable shouted 'Water' at the last minute and they let go all sails, losing not only to us but everyone else in the race. That is not fair racing, its not 'Cricket'!
I hate the esoteric and more and more complex rules that allow a contestant to force an error. The first I was aware of was the 'offside' rule in football; savvy defenders simply ran up-field forcing the attackers into a penalty. It is ridiculous to force such fast and unstable boats into such a small course. Inevitably, just like F1, whoever gets the best start leads the whole race and makes for boring racing.
BTW, I was very impressed with the AC75 until I heard that the 'chase boat' has to tow them onto the plane - ridiculous, if a boat cannot transition from displacement to planing without assistance it is not a competent vessel! Let us see them race whatever the wind, e.g. in 5 knots.
Well done Luna Rossa! As I am English I am rooting for Britannia but, NZ chose the formula and it will be embarrassing if they lose this multimillion pound contest.
Good analysis as always. Thanks Mozzy
Another great analysis. However we should point out that start 6 should be what all starts look like if nobody made a mistake. And at this level Bens starting mistakes are inexcusable, you can easily start even and talk boatspeed if you lose.
Great analysis again. On rules I do think that it was a bit unfair as if the OD says it’s done I don’t think the other boat should be able to coach and influence the OD to give another penalty. On That Ben has a right to be annoyed.
Ineos is definitely on a lower VMG upwind plus the tacking disadvantage and yes maybe it’s fractionally closer now but it’s still there and its very difficult to see with Ineos having the slower boat that LG won’t pick up the 2 more races it needs. It’s painful to admit it but Ineos might get a couple more race wins but they just are not going to catch and win from this position without a performance advantage and the gap we just had was pretty much there last chance to get that.
Jimmy just won’t give it up from this position.
I have watched and rewatched the video provided by the Prada TV system. I think it worth checking because the way it seemed to me slowed down, it is in fact Luna Rossa which crossed the line virtually (there is a virtual "diamond shape" around the whole boat which must not cross boundaries, start lines early). They didn't cross together at exactly the same time virtually. Physically, Ineos overtook LR one the start line and it too crossed the line early.
The second penalty called to Ineos wasn't a recall for the OCS ones (when the light goes off the OCS penalty was done) the other penalty to Ineos was cause they entered inside the safety diamond of Luna Rossa (before the start there's no right of course, who is in front have the right of course) forcing the Italians to suddently tun to avoiding the collision, there Ineos overtook LR, so gaining an advantage.
Safety Diamond described in the AC rules, page 4.
Keep Clear Border A symmetrical polygon that touches the:
• aft point on the media post,
• 2 metres outboard from the transom corners, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the
AC75 Class Rule)
• 2 metres outboard from the maximum beam at the foil arm region (9.950 m and 12.000 m
forward of TRP), perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule), and
• 2 metres outboard from the end of the bowsprit, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the
AC75 Class Rule).
Improving INEOS light airs performance.
Have the Ineos guys tried turbulating their foils near the tip for lighter winds? (Ways include roughing up the front of the foils with some coarse sandpaper, adding gaffa tape or even some nails or wires, if its allowed!), As you covered in your video on foils, The delta planform can provide a lot of lift and goes to high angle of attack but the penalty is huge drag at high lift since the tips are stalled due to their lower RE.
The idea behind the turbulator is to keep the flow stuck on at the low Reynolds numbers at the tip at low speed and give them a slightly better L/D to get up in light winds.( Same lift without having to go to such a high angle of atack on the foil.)
I'm sure they will have checked out this idea but just in case they havent ...
Great set of tech videos. Thanks!
Sweet!
I was hoping for an analysis of the second race start where Ineos was ahead. From my layman's perspective they could have made life a lot more difficult for Luna Rossa on the start line, but instead they chose their own course. Ineos won that race, do you think it was due to their decision on the start? Could they have done better?
Don't stop watching the video early then and you would have seen the second race.
Dont be sore losers - Luna Rossa was faster than us Brits boat, plus it was sailed better. This particular race would have made no difference to the outcome. At the end of the day the British boat was just uncompetitive agains the Italian boat. Well done Luna Rossa!!
No soreness here!
th-cam.com/video/KNxsBHeE-u4/w-d-xo.html
I think making the penalty a clear and immediate course change would be much more understandable. Perhaps require that a penalized yacht immediately turn to a downwind course (> 135 TWA) for an upwind penalty or to an upwind course (
Yeah, that could work
For me it was just brilliant tactics at the start by Luna Rossa and Ineos was totally caught floundering. It was obvious that LR was going to be early so Ainsley should have gone behind them and started as normal. For me it was just bad sailing where Ainsley was found wanting again.
OCS = On Course Side (of starting line) before the start time.
Thanks 🙏
I thought I heard OCS until I heard Mozzy saying OTS (over the start, presumably) so went back to listen again.
Thanks, I had wondered
So OCS=OTL (over the line)
I think OCS is Over Course Start.
@@ignasilopez-pinto8795 OCS = On Course Side, as Tim says. Meaning that the yacht is on the course side (i.e. the side towards the first mark) of the starting line when the start signal is made.
@@TheKaledonianz Thanks, I was wrong. Some times I get confused with english acronyms.
How could both boats serve a 50 m penalty for being over early ...? If they try to serve it at the same time they would both slow down equally and neither boat would be able to get 50m behind, and if one does it after the other it would be unfair because the first boat would lose 50m so the second boat would have to lose 100m to get 50m behind and it would essentially be the same as only one boat serving the penalty. Apart from both boats having to go back over the line which would be quite a mess I dont see any other option than to clear both penalties...
Well, the boat thay is over by less will.find it easier to dip 50m, as luna rossa did. But yes, they could end up racing each other to get 50m behind... or just go back.
Thems the rules. I didnt make them.
Personally, I would have the race committee do a recall in the event both boats are over. Seems the most fair thing. And would be good to watch.
The 50m penalty is confusing to audience and to the sailors, since only the umpires with their hi tech instrumentation can see if it's been served. Maybe in some future series, the umpire could remotely activate a drogue for say 30 secs or so i.e introduce a drag penalty with the more spray the better. It'd be dramatic and obvious, yet not match ending as say a 360. There'd be no question about its having been served. BTW thanks for your series @656mozzy, they're always enlightening.
Actually, the sailors could activate it themselves, making it more like the old days when they could choose their moment.
Hope you are going to keep going with the analysis in the Cup match even thought you no longer have a dog in the fight.
I expect ( & hope ) another umpire review is coming....
great explanations for wanna be match racers to get a grip on tactics. thank you. as far as I can tell, the best strategy is to annoy the crap out of the other captain.
as for every sport ;)
Hi ! Are their 3 umpires in the control team and does it becomes a universal decision ? I think Richard Slater has a lot of input form the others.
Regards.
I do understand Ben's reasoning here, it's normal that he is pushing the envelope considering how key the starts were to winning regattas with a slower boat. However it was not the first time since the Christmas races that the umpires seemed not fully in control.
I'd love to know your opinion on today's call on the Port/Starboard situation at the start of Race 8, I really cannot understand how that resulted in a penalty for LR.
And keep up the good work 😉
Great analysis. But please, do not say that Ben misses the match race ... Ben knows that RITA is maneuvering with more difficulty than LR and must adapt. You are Brit, remember who is Ben !
The Italian teams have come along way from the days when, to quote Ted Turner, "You could always tell when the Italians were getting ready to tack. You'd see cigarette butts flying overboard".
I was under the impression that a foul on the other boat was a relegation to 50m behind penalty, and other things- boundary penalties and the like, were 50m relative to your own predicted progress. This being a foul on another boat, I was expecting them to drop to 50m distance immediately (a short stint building boat speed with 0vmg) and try to come back to clip LR on Starboard. It seemed very odd that it was cancelled as a relative penalty. Seeing the rules as you've shown them, surely it makes more sense that the gaining an advantage penalty is 50m relative, but that was applied as an absolute- you can see the moment the graphic shows 50m behind it was cleared (even if the commentators took a while to pick up on that). It seemed like they were applying the penalty they should have applied immediately, but it was more harsh because it was delayed.
In any case Ineos ought to have bluffed down before the start- the threat of them either hooking or passing at full speed behind the slow LR boat would have forced LR to bear away too, opening the gap to get onto the start line.
The umpires cancelled GBR's penalty too early, then took what they saw to be an opportunity to reinstate it. But I agree with you Mozzy, once a penalty is cleared, it has to stay cleared. The umpires have judged that the penalty was taken in accordance with the rules and the race carries on. If, a short time later, it appears that the penalised boat is in a suprisingly good position relative to their opponent, it is because either a) they got a bit of luck with the wind, b) the opponent made a mistake, or c) the umpires were too hasty in clearing the penalty. None of those should be a reason to reinstate the penalty - it makes a mockery of the whole thing. It's a bit like a football referee realising he has mistakenly awarded a penalty to one team, and then looking for any excuse to award the other team a penalty to even it up. Two wrongs don't make a right.
This is now making a lot of sense to me. Ineos should try a protest.
Excellent summary
The second penalty called to Ineos wasn't a recall for the OCS ones (when the light goes off the OCS penalty was done) the other penalty to Ineos was cause they entered inside the safety diamond of Luna Rossa (not allowed, forcing the Italians to suddently tun to avoiding the collision, so there Ineos gain an advantage.
Safety Diamond described in the AC rules, page 4.
Keep Clear Border A symmetrical polygon that touches the:
• aft point on the media post,
• 2 metres outboard from the transom corners, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the
AC75 Class Rule)
• 2 metres outboard from the maximum beam at the foil arm region (9.950 m and 12.000 m
forward of TRP), perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule), and
• 2 metres outboard from the end of the bowsprit, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the
AC75 Class Rule)
@@MozzySails Thanks Mozzy! I've been really enjoying your videos - brilliant in-depth analysis
Do you think the 360 or maybe some kind of "double tack" to replace the current stupid penalty system, letting the boats decide when to take their penalty OR feet even by putting a penalty on the opponent?
From memory, the current penalty rule was introduced by Oracle Racing back in 34th Americas cup because it was dangerous and almost impossible to do a 360 turn in the big Cats that they were racing at the time, but it's time for a review.
@@robertcrookes2529 I totally agree, but look at a tacking battle in cats, it doesn't work att all. But as soon as the foiling took over the maneuverability of the boats got better and look at the double foil turns around the bottom gate in AC75, I bet a 360 or double-stack-tack while remaining om the foils would put the penalty back into the hands of the sailors and tacticians. And skill carrying out that penalty would be a part of the skillset needed to compete in the Cup.
Just look back at old WMRT races in monohulls where good penalty killers like Peter Gilmour or Björn Hansen could win no matter he had a penalty or not.
Couldn’t have said this better. Refs completely botched the first race today.
Not at all. The second penalty to Ineos was cause they entered in the safety diamond zone of LR.
Safety Diamond described in the AC rules, page 4.
Keep Clear Border A symmetrical polygon that touches the:
• aft point on the media post,
• 2 metres outboard from the transom corners, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the
AC75 Class Rule)
• 2 metres outboard from the maximum beam at the foil arm region (9.950 m and 12.000 m
forward of TRP), perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule), and
• 2 metres outboard from the end of the bowsprit, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the
AC75 Class Rule).
No nick Ben botched it
Great analysis. I concur with INEOS feeling aggrieved. If the penalty is cleared it is cleared.
How is it so hard to understand the rules and penalties that were issued? I think you got your UK specs on here. Ben KNOWS it was a second penalty and it was HIS crazy action at the start line. He is using gamesmanship on the comms. He knows he has to be behind LR at a cross (and therefore lose the right) which he knows he can't do or race is lost....
He deserved everything and more. You can't bully your way in to a space because you are desperate. Luckily LR avoided AND splashed down just to avoid Ainsle barging in between them and the buoy. SMH. Can't believe you think it has anything to do with umpires. It was Ainsle all over.
As for LR, of course they are going to use that opportunity to make sure they get ahead in an advantageous place, not on the left in less pressure and no RoW...???
Can someone explain what is meant by "mode". I thought there was just one mode fast = maximise the VMG. Thanks is advance.
Grazie Mozzy!
Regarding the first race and the comment at: 6:15 "You can see Ben's annoyed."
I'm sorry, but I couldn't see it! If Ben was truly annoyed and memorized, then understood the rulebook, he'd protest and probably got the penalty cleared.
He didn't do it, did he?
Sorry Ben, I'm your most fervent fan, but fair is fair. Jimmy beat you there. When he was annoyed, I could clearly "see" (meaning hear) it on the comms!
Okay, Ben's busy, I understand (but so was Jimmy). How about anybody else? Giles? Anyone?
Anyway, a beautiful race day. I'm so enjoying it, it's just silly. I'm feeling almost guilty. All that fun for free!
Ben couldn't have been cleared, cause the second penalty wasn't for the OCS but cause Ineos entered dangerously inside the safety diamond zone of LR.
Safety Diamond described in the AC rules, page 4.
Keep Clear Border A symmetrical polygon that touches the:
• aft point on the media post,
• 2 metres outboard from the transom corners, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the
AC75 Class Rule)
• 2 metres outboard from the maximum beam at the foil arm region (9.950 m and 12.000 m
forward of TRP), perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the AC75 Class Rule), and
• 2 metres outboard from the end of the bowsprit, perpendicular to the LCP (as defined in the
AC75 Class Rule).
The second penalty to Ineos was fair and square, Umpries didn't did nothing wrong.
@@solinvictus1234 "the second penalty wasn't for"
It doesn't matter for what the penalty was. It mattered that Ineos tried to stay behind, while Luna Rosa made it exceedingly difficult. There is a case in the rulebook for that behavior, apparently.
If that's true, Ineos at the very least should have tried to protest it.
"The second penalty to Ineos was fair and square"
I accept that. It's the behavior of LR, who tried clearing this penalty difficult, which is in question here. I remember the comms, where it was rather obvious, that Ineos were not on top of their game there. Something like (I quote from memory): "We are behind! [as requested] What more do you want us to do?!"
And the umpires answered: "You need extra 10m to clear the penalty."
What if Ben did what Jimmy did? What if he protested the LR for intentionally lagging and obstructing the penalty clearing?
If the author of the video is correct, they did effed it up. Sorry. (But then, if he's not, they didn't, so I don't know.)
@@bakters The penalties meters aren't counted using the eyes, both boats and umpries boath have GPS on them, that are saved as a telemetry, no way for the umpries to modify the penalty distance or "cheating" on it. As the boundary limits are GPS/IR sensors tracked, if you go over the boundaries there's no space for a mistake, you goes over.
So if Ineos slowed only 40 meters, it was 40 meters and -10 was required.
@@solinvictus1234 "no way for the umpries to modify the penalty distance or "cheating" on it."
The author said something else. Namely, he's found a rule, which takes into account the other boat trying to obscure the execution of the penalty. Then the penalized boat has a right to protest it and hopefully get the penalty cleared.
The protest never came. That's what I'm complaining here about.
"So if Ineos slowed only 40 meters, it was 40 meters and -10 was required."
They tried to do it over several tacks. LR could have went their way toward the top mark and the penalty would've been cleared the first time Ineos bore away. But LR didn't do it. They tacked simultaneously and bore away too. So Ineos had to try again and again.
They had the right to the protest, as far as I understand it. Your objections are correct and valid, but that isn't the crux of the matter I'm raising here.
Basically, Ineos screwed up by not, at the very least, trying to protest the Luna Rosa team. If the protest wasn't granted, that's tough, but at least they tried!
Loving your commentary, as a -beginner sailor I wouldn't have noticed half of what you talk about.
Could you do a video on wind shadow and turbulence to explain why its so hard for the boat behind to pass?
INEOS is toast. I watched both entire races on the livewire computer view, following both yachts. Key takeaway: LR is ailing a higher angle at a slighter higher speed upwind. INEOS can’t fight that. 2d Takeaway: INEOS was losing 20+ meters on nearly every tack exchange. LR Is getting through 90% of tacks faster, and getting to max speed faster. But Ben knows LR can sail higher and faster upwind.
Trade off on the jib. Not good upwind. Jib gives slightly better downwind speed and angle. I hate that maxi they use. The biggest surprise/sadness was that there was no new sail plan for Ineos after the Round Robins. I think they had run out of money.
Thanks Mozzy, interesting analysis as always. Do you think Ben and the team may go with a really aggressive (risky) sail and foil setup? Opting for boat speed over stability and simply trusting in the boat crew to keep it wet side down? . . I would think Sir Jim would support that approach. Being knocked out when you have tried and given everything is truely honourable and memorable .
Well, if you were ever going to push the boat out and throw everything at it, being on matchpoint is the time!!
OCS both boats should go back over and recross.
You are too clever to support your idea regarding the penalty.
Theyfrom what I understood three penalties one for ocs cleared with the same ocs of LR. The second just one sec after the start before the first ineos tack and the third one at the first cross.
No third penalty? I think there were only two but it took INEOS a long time to scrub the second.
@@johnandrews2853 i still think there were three
@@johnandrews2853 I like very much the guys of mozzy but this time I was disappointed by the justification of the penalties I found them a little for Ineos that is understandable but still in disappointingly.
If both OCS can't get cancelled, according to the rule then LR has finished their regatta with a penalty and should be protest against the jury and the regatta should be repeated.
To say the least.
@@ignasilopez-pinto8795 the ocs has been deleted for both of the teams. There three penalties for uk and one for LR. That is it. No regata to be repeated. Lets watch regata 7 and 8 and discuss about them. 😉
I think that the fact that GBR was penalized for a windward leeward foul even though they never really got that close IMO , illustrates perfectly why these boats have ruined true match racing in the AC. I dare anyone to go back and watch the races between Alinghi and NZ, or any of the 12 meter races, and say that the racing wasn't much better. These boats are exciting only to those that never match raced. No real pre start battles, tacking duels, sail changes, etc. Shame.
My words.
Those boats are spectacular, no doubt about that. But the racing itself is somewhat boring. It is all about boat speed alone.
Although I have to admit it got better then with the catamarans. With the catamarans it was: Does anybody get a hook in the prestart? No? Ok, then lets get into driving on the highway.
You could well be right. I also think many people watching are doing so due to lockdown. A predictable end is not a formula for sporting excitement. Already the views are massively down due to the predictability.
We must be watching different races. I've seen lots of pre-start strategy, smart rule play, luffing, tacking duels, smart wind shift picking, poor sail choices and mark rounding. No spinnaker trawls, I'll give you that. I had expected the racing to be much less competitive, but have been pleasantly surprised.
@@gpsfinancial6988 Did you used to watch previous ACs prior to the catamaran era? 5 minutes of knock down, drag out battles that set the stage for hundreds of tacks and jibes. Now its one conversion, and for the most part a time in distance race to the line. I still watch, but foiling boats are not anywhere near as exciting for match races.
Agree the penalty on Ineos was excessive and completely shut the Brits out of the first race, but man Jimmy sure did a number on Ben.
Don't underestimate Ineos's ability to learn how to sail ever faster with every leg. Come on team uk! 6 more wins ten on to the Cup!
If your foots to the floor, you can't " learn " how to make any vehicle faster. That's for the tech guys and times running out.
@@listeningto8371 I think the car analogy is flawed. For it to work, there would have to be a whole bunch of engine controls to be managed by the driver, not just a throttle. Like: valve overlap, injection timing, boost pressure, etc etc. And that's just to make you analogy cover what the sail trimmers are doing. The flight controllers are manipulating the (metaphorical) suspension geometry and the air foils. About the only part of the analogy which kinda works is the steering wheel and the gearshift (mode selection) but even that second one is a lot more nuanced than in the car situation.
What I'm saying is that there's no way for us to know if INEOS have already got their foot to the floor, by optimising all of those things. It seems unlikely on the evidence. What is likely is that LR have got closer to that situation, but who would know for sure even where they are.
Well, it's game over buddy, See ya!
Gloria per i vincitori e onore agli sconfitti. Stavolta abbiamo VINTO NOI ! Cordiali saluti a tutti
@@gianlucamandolesi2448
E lo stesso per te ...
Congratulazioni di cuore a una squadra meravigliosa
Here's a thing. If it is an even score (5/5 or 6/6)at the close of play on 24 February (it might be too windy to sail) then Ineos win because they were the last to win a race? Wonder if Jimmy would ram Ainslie off the track at 5/4?
He could try, it would no doubt be penalty to Ineos if he did
What are the square windows / openings in ineos keel for ?
Drainage for the cockpit. All boats have them, but other teams are a bit more subtle.
@@MozzySails Thanks for sharing your knowledge
@@MozzySails Could you explain what the Red and Greenlight on the stern of the boat for?
@@jumperstartful
As I understand it, the green light is just an indicator: you are approaching the course boundary. It starts blinking at some distance and changes to solid green when you reached the boundary.
The red light is for penalties
Did LR not gain an advantage in the sense that their luffing up at the start came at the cost of OCS violation?
Yeah, you could argue that. I really dislike the 'gain and advantage bit'. Its needed under normal rules, but here the umpire should hd them back until 50m behind and then game on.
If ben gains after the umpire has said game on, how can thay then be flagged?
Umpire mistakes this one.
With both yachts over the line and the complexity of who gained an Advantage on both sides it should have been a restart. No question. And that’s the real error made by the OD. I couldn’t believe that they didn’t bring them back.
Am I wrong in thinking the video shows the "too close" infringement by Ineos BEFORE both LR and Ineos cross the start line? Please tell me so because if LR corssed the start line early (as did Ineos) then Ineos cannot cause an infringement by getting too close to LR when it is the duty of LR to move 50 metres back (and also the duty of Ineos to move 50 m back).
@@MozzySails So there’s no way to protest the race or umpire’s call? No way the umpire should have changed his mind a minute later.
@@ScottSummerill I was wondering the same thing
I'm just curious where this fellow's accent is from...specific region.
North west England. But spent 16 years on the south coast too.. so it's a mash up!
I still don't understand and how Luna Rossa's start can be perfect when they were early.
Isn't arriving at the line on time fundamental?
Luna Rossa gybed and made a timed run to the right-hand end of the starting line.
Before they arrived at the line they luffed Ineos and closed the gap. They could only do this by deliberately starting early instead of running down the line.
And by doing so they compromised the ability of Ineos to manoeuvre.
It was also quite dangerous. If the board comes into contact with the crew of the other boat there could be serious injury.
They were 3 seconds early. That's quite a big margin
I appreciate what you're saying about the over the line penalties not being able to cancel each other out under the rules, and that the race should have been restarted. That makes sense.
I just don't understand how it can be legal for Luna Rossa to luff up and close the gap for Ineos Team UK when they can only do this by crossing the line even earlier than they would if they had kept their course.
It's a deliberate infringement of a rule in order to gain an advantage and it's dangerous driving. Which could be classed as unsportsmanlike behaviour.
What do I know. The only boats I have raced are Lasers and Contessa 32. I've got no match racing experience. But it doesn't make sense to me.
LR had priority (enough advance and wind on the same side) so they were free to manoeuver to their liking, I think that's the only rule that applies here ? They are 'free' to cross the line when they want (and get a penalty if it's too early). Ineos should have slowed instead of forcing its way, this way only LR would get the penalty, but this Spithill is a real devil, and Aisle was triggered...
This kind of situations confirms my mistrust against the world of regattas, some rules are quite loose when boats positions change constantly, it's sometimes impossible to tell exactly which boat has priority on the same tack, and the greater bully often wins when there is a doubt.
Great analysis as ever. I also committed the biggest financial mistake of my life by clicking the skip ad button at the end. 😂
With all being said the brits have no answer against the Italians. Looking forward to much better comp. against NZ.
The penalty system does seem kind of absurd, at least with a 360 you've either done your penalty or you haven't - would a lighter penalty e.g. a "270" - so going upwind you have to turn downwind, gybe and come back on the other tack, be suitable? A full 360 would almost certainly be race over with these boats.
great fan of your technical insights and explanations. Unrelated to the race 5 start ... why are mainsails adding area at the head ? Why aren't mainsails more elliptical ?
Maybe same aero reason that airplane wings aren't normally eliptical, plus they would foul the runners, plus the mainsail regulations probably prevent it.
A general would have been much tidier. Go back to a 360 it's safe enough
@@kukuc96
Yep, I agree. At the VMG of these boats a 360 would cost several hundred metres. If you tried to go from a tack straight into a gybe, or vice versa, you’d probably come off the foils. I agree with the OP that if both boats are over it should be a general recall.
There's no general in match racing
@@DarrynMc01 Rodger that. I have more team racing bg
@@DarrynMc01 Then they should have "round the ends" rule...OCS means having to go around one end of the line and cross correctly. In this case of both OCS boats, both would need to do a round the end restart....negating both penalties means one boat could be WAY over early, and get a huge advantage over other barely over early...penalty negated and you are sitting pretty!
Analysing the penalty rule is interesting bur irrelevant. Ineos was out sailed and out designed. Can't believe that after all that development the Ineos main at the foot looked like an old curtain draped across the boom where as LR's main was perfectly set down to the deck.I did catch Paul Goodison say that LR's boom may have been located under the deck. Is this feasable?
Yes, they're are some leaked images. But, it doesn't really function like a boom (control of clew), so is more like an elaborated traveler. It's pretty much as I described in the mainsail controls video.
@@MozzySails That's really clever.
Good analysis. But. Why at the point when they got to shoot the gap the gap existed and Lr was dipping. When Lr come up ineos respond immediately they come up and tack. Give the boat must have time to keep clean why was it a penalty.
LUNA ROSSA OOOYYYEEEEAAA
Am I wrong to see that LR were slowing down as Rita was trying to drop their penalty of 50m, thus making it impossible to wash it out - ?trying to get Rita off their foils maybe? ? Whether they were or not - would that be a legal move? Ref 2:46 and your commentary about the tacking.
No one could do that on purpose cause the risk of drop off of your foils are too high, so if your opponent is clearing the penalty you just want to goes faster to gain meters + that 50 meters of pnalty.
For sure LR suffered a jump of wind pressure that switched side on the Ineos side of the field.
Now to start the LRPP vs ETNZ preview!
Very interesting analysis. Thanks.
Great analysis as always!
In every other sport I can think of, once you apply the penalty (a kick, yardage, time in the sin-bin), the slate is wiped clean. In sailing, if you split tack to let the non-penalized boat pull ahead the required distance, and then accidentally benefit from a lift the non-penalized boat doesn't get, you can be penalized again? It's as if, in football, one team is awarded a penalty kick, hits the woodwork. the ball rebounds to the other end and the penalized team scores (hello, Brentford). Applying AC rules, the penalized team should be given another penalty because it enjoyed an accidental advantage from the first infraction. What am I missing?
Buddy how often does that happen in football? Pretty much never. Barging in sailing is very common, and very illegal. if someone is able to barge and make a gain by going to the right side, getting you that first shift, then you might as well take the penalty and barge when ever that side is favored. A shift in this ac event can make you gain 100s of meters, 50 meters is nothing for these boats.
The penalty is to give 50m to the opponent. How is it possible to gain from a penalty. The penalty being wiped clear was an umpire mistake. But Ben is right to annoyed thay is was re applied later up the beat after the judge had already cleared it.
@@roccofalcone2777 Brentford v Doncaster playoff 2014.
@@MozzySails Pity they can's stop the boats and go to VAR. That way they could ruin another sport.
@@MozzySails I never saw ineos lose 50 m after the start, so it definitely was a mistake for the judges to wipe the penalty.
A literal reading of 44.4(c), "If a yacht has a penalty and the other yacht is penalized", suggests that this rule does not apply to simultaneous penalties ... neither yacht had a penalty at the time that the other yacht was penalised (smile). If so, the business about the rule not applying to OCS penalties can be ignored, since the rule doesn't apply in the first place. The problem for an umpire is that 44.4(c) is the only rule which deals with offsetting or neutralising penalties. If 44.4(c) doesn't apply, there is no mechanism for simultaneous penalties to be offset, and there is no way to fairly require each boat to slow down so that the other boat can get 50m ahead. A sensible umpire therefore calls "Penalties offset", and leaves it to either boat to request redress for an umpire decision that was not based on any rule.
In case this seems a little far fetched, consider a boundary penalty given simultaneously to each boat, when one on the right and one on the left both mess up their tack or gybe by half a metre at exactly the same time (they were racing neck and neck, after all)....
This rule about offsetting penalties in an AC75 match race is curious for another reason. Because a penalty cannot be carried (it must be taken immediately, "the penalized yacht shall act immediately to reduce her VMG / VMC"), there is almost never going to be a situation where the rule as written can sensibly apply. "If a yacht has a penalty [...]", she must act immediately (or face a further penalty or a DSQ). And while acting immediately, if "the other yacht is penalized", does that mean she can stop taking her penalty and resume racing? Wait, what about the ground she lost in the meantime while the umpires needed time to make a decision? So a rule about penalties offsetting is really only a sensible rule when an allowance is made for umpire decision time. That is, a penalty need not be taken immediately, but only after the umpires declare the incident 'processed', so it is at that point that an allocated penalty becomes due for immediate action.
True about the literal reading. Clearly not the intent, but could be argued.
However, I don't follow that there isn't a fair way for the boat to get 50 m behind each other. Because, clearly, it's then just a race to get behind the other boat. And in all this they also have the other option to return and start properly. So I wouldn't agree that the only sensible option is for the umpire to offset.
Completely agree about your point about offsetting not really having a purpose where penalties can't be carried.
The other part that serves no purpose is the 'gained advantage' when the penalty is to go behind the other yacht (i see the purpose for just losing 50m relative). Surely if the umpire does their job and puts you 50m behind, then what advantage could there be?
@@MozzySails What would have happened if one of the boats did in fact turn back and recross the line? And perhaps the other elected to continue on?
@@MozzySails "don't follow that there isn't a fair way for the boat to get 50 m behind each other" Well, I don't think two boats can each be 50 m behind the other. If one is indeed 50 m behind, the other must be 50 m in front.... Let's take a simultaneous boundary penalty call to keep it simple, and let's imagine that the boats are indeed neck and neck. So, both boats must act immediately to get 50 m behind. Both slow down, and nope, neither falls behind sufficiently. Rather than fall off their foils, both now turn back, and racing towards the mark they rounded earlier, they are still abreast. At some point, one boat manages to get 50 m behind. Their penalty is taken, so they can go back to racing. The other boat, however, must now wait until they are overtaken and, only when 50 m behind, can get back to racing in turn. Unfair, I think, because both boats, each having earned a penalty, should be equally disadvantaged, but not so, one will 'win' the race to the rear and will then gain an advantage.
@@lestergilbert5224 no, they can't be simultaneously 50 m behind each other.
I am not arguing this is a good rule by any stretch! But one boat can be 50m behind and then the other is, so taking it in turn. In an extreme case this could lead to a race backwards around the course. In reality, what happens is that one boat ducks first, then the other does and the advantage goes to the boat that ducked 50 first.
But you're right, it's a bit unfair, but I guess it favours prompt exoneration of ones penalties?
@@ScottSummerill If you and the other boat are both OCS, I guess you should turn back and restart, and hope that the other boat doesn't. After your restart, the other boat has to allow you to get 50 m ahead, so, other things being equal, you've won the start rather nicely. Curious that neither boat seems to have game-tested this scenario beforehand and written it into their playbook.
Sorry your wrong, clear as explanation from the rules officials after the race
You're wrong*
You are wrong in your assessment of penalty lights at start - rules are same for all and explained well below by Sol. However I agree is messy and would much prefer they return to the 360 rule.
I dont believe so. Umpire calls OCS neutralised (wrongly). But he is clear INEOS still have a penalty(for W/L). INEOS light stays on and LR light goes off. Giles confirms this to Ben that still have a penalty. Then, about 20 second later the light comes off and Giles tells Ben that the penalty is clear. Then another minute later, after prompting by Jimmy the umpire gives a second and new penalty for gaining an advantage. Again, he is very clear this is a new penalty.
The boats have gone through massive evolution over the last decade... The way they start the races has failed to adapt with the new boat speeds and formats, this NEEDS to change! A race that’s won/lost before they even cross the start line is going to have a detrimental effect to the future fan-base of this modern style of sailing. Imagine F1 started this way!? It’s daft and we should not keep such silly procedures simply based on historic ceremony... Especially if it detracts from the actual race.
Thank goodness you said this! I have been trying to say it in as short and clear a fashion as you use for weeks now. Once a sport is predictable it is dead duck for the public. On top of that the internal painful small minded politics. Have you noticed how the number of clicks/users/comments is down to about 1/8 of other posts not just on this site but others like Justin Mitchell, Stuff, planet sail, etc. I think people have been turned off by the start being the only determinant. Why watch for 25 minutes when it is over in the first 2 minutes? The 9 passes race was an oddity.
I disagree, although I am equally frustrated by, win the start win the race. I think the issue is the coarse size as it doesn’t allow time in separation due to there speed over water. The starts add an element that the designers may not have factored in. Maneuverability. F1 is all about the fastest car. AC is about the fastest boat, but it also needs to adapt to a wide range of conditions and respond to the skills of another crew. It’s match racing. The starts not the problem, unless you keep losing it.
@@desmondcrosland7884 San Fran 2013 was better with 5 marks to round and not just an up and down race.
@@petertelford5338 sorry, San Francisco has been erased from my memory.
@@desmondcrosland7884 Ah I understand! Don't worry, Spithill was 8:1 down before Ainslie rescued him. Now he's got cecho strapped to his left leg.
A 370?
Ascolta le Vele di Luna Rossa come fischiano ; Chiaro segno che sono al Vento
In the round robins LR's tacking and gybing was inferior to ITUK's. It is now superior. Can ITUK do anything to match the Italians? If not, why not???
In the RR Italians had new foils (fitted for that race) to their boats and they was untrained to that set-up, in fact they did a lot of mistakes in that RR, still they lost with a small time. That for Ineos was a Pyrric victory i think
This analyst speaks like he never matchraced!😂😂