ATTACK UPHELD

Evening Star, Issue 19893, 15 June 1928, Page 1

ATTACK UPHELD

OTAGO AND CORNWELL CUP

AUSTRALIAN RULING ON DECISIONS From Australia’s noted authority on rules, Mr E G., Ulm- sailing editor of the ‘ Motor Boat and Yachting Monthly.’ an opinion on the rulings of the Cornwell Cup Committee in the recent contest when Otago was deprived of the trophy has been received, and his rulings • support strongly what tho Otago Yacht and Motor Boat Association and “ For’ard Hand,” the ' Star’s ’ yachting writer, had to say at that time. Otago’s attack on the inefficient rulings of the Contest Committee has been vindicated, and the association will probably persist in the northerners agreeing to a case being cited for a yacht racing association ruling. Soon after the contest Mr Ulm had the following remarks to make in his journal:— “ Some decisions are outrageous. An example is_ the Cornwell Cup, recently sailed for in New Zealand, in the fifth event of which a resail was ordered by the committee between the- winner and another boat, which , had fouled during the race. The Otago had won the race admittedly (and incidentally, the series by this win). She had committed no breach; by what process of asinine reasoning they ordered a resail between these two boats (only) beats me completely. The only time such a thing could happen is when there is a dead heat. This stands alone as the worst case of incapacity and , wrong decision in the annals of sailing, because it cannot he upheld by any rules of any sport, and is an insult to common sense. (A member of the ALR.A. concurs in the above.)”

This expression prompted Mr J. T. Paul, chairman of the O.Y. and M.8.A., to ask Mr-O. W. Sundstrum, commodore of the _ Otago Club, to obtain a definite opinion from Mr Ulm when he visited Australia

The case for ruling was set out as by Mr Paul for Mr Ulm’s consideration ’—

‘ In a yacht race which wone one of a series for a one-design class, the crews changing boats for each race, eight boats—Tauranga, Manakau, Whangarei, Auckland, Hawke’s Bay, Wellington, Canterbury, and Otago—started. After tho race had proceeded for some time Otago had established- a good lead. Auckland and Canterbury collided, Canterbury being guilty of an infringement of the port-starboard tack rule. Auckland retired, sailing _ back to her moorings,'her shrouds being slackened as a result of tho collision. The raco continued, Canterbury retiring before its conclusion, and Whangarei also retired at a later stage. Five boats finished the race, Otago being first, Tauranga second, and Manakau third. “ After the race Auckland applied for a resail on tho ground that the boat had to retire owing to damage caused by Canterbury when Auckland, had a reasonable chance of winning. “ The Sailing Committee decided by a majority:— “1. (a) That the collision had a detrimental effect on Auckland’s gear and ■applied her chance of carrying on in the race. ’

”2. (b) Owing to a collision which occurred in the race causing Auckland to retire through damage which tho crew was not responsible for, this committee orders a resail between Auckland and Otago to decide the winner of the race.

“ Question; “ 3. (a) Was the decision of tho Bailing Committee in ordering the race to bo resailed in accordance with yacht racing practice and the rules of racing? “4. (b) Was the'Sailing Committee’s decision in restricting tho resailed race to Auckland and Otago in accordance with yacht racing practice and the rules of racing?

To these four questions Mr Ulm’s answers aro as follow; “1. The first decision of the committee is quite unnecessary and puerile, because the collision was admitted, and whether it prevented her carrying on or not does not affect Otago. “ 2. The second decision is the one I have commented on so strongly I further add that I consider it outrageous and unsportsmanlike, and deserving of the greatest censure. The proper attitude of Otago would have been to refuse to resail, as by all the rules of sailing and fair piny she had won unquestionably “3. In ordering a rcsail the Sailing Committee gravely erred; it was contrary to yacht practice and the rules of racing.

“4. Restricting tho rcsail to Auckland and Otago is against racing practice, the racing rules, and common sense.”

Tho following was appended to the plain statement supplied bv Mr Paul “Extract from Racing Rules governing tho contest:—

“The contests shall be sailed under the Y.R.A. rules, with such modifications as the committee in each ' aso shall decide. Failing any decision of the committee to the contrary the following modifications to th, Y.R.A. rules,shall apply.

“5. (1) The start to be by tho five flag method. “ 6. (2) Boat capsizing during a race not to affect race.

“7. (3) lloat not to bo interfered with, and no person to leave or join a boat during the race. “S. (41 Protests must be lodged within ono_ hour after completion of the race with either the Sailing Committee or at the headquarters of tho conference, addressed to the non, sec retarv.”

To* this Mr Ulm answered as follows :

“5. (1) This five-flag method is not a modification of the sailing rules properly speaking: it is merely a regulation; it does not affect the case. ‘•‘o, (2) This is childish and meaningless, A ..capsize ‘does’ affect the race, unless ‘ affect ’ means something else unexplained. “7. (3) This is a.geml The latter part is provided for in the Y.R.A. rules, therefore unnecessary as a ‘modification.’

. “S. (4) Lodging protests, etc., is a regulation, any modification as to time and place to , lodge same is quite permissible.

“Commenting on 7 (3) as above, it shows a peculiar mentality on the part of the .framer,of this sentence, it says nothing definitely, means nothing really, but infers that the competitors are to be regarded with suspicion and are warned not to ,‘ cheat,’ therefore admitting that such will most likely be the case, unless this solemn warning be inserted,

“ Our sport, I maintain, is open, clear, and -manly. The devotees are the same, and I, for one, would greatly resent a comraiHce saying, in effect: ‘ Gentlemen, in this race (or any game) there must bo no cheating.’ “ I have expressed myself strongly, but that is how I feel.” . , •