THIS SECTION MAY BE COMPLETED BY ANY JURY MEMBER
Comments on rule questions, new interpretations, problems, unpopular Rule 62 (Redress) decisions, summary of the facts, conclusions and decisions of Rule 69 (Allegations of Gross Misconduct) actions, problems with Sailing Instructions or Notice of Race and experience with experimental procedures.
The race management was poor because of volonteers who had nearely no knowledge of sailing and because of the prevailing unstable wind conditions. Because of the
problems on the water the class organisation decided to allot to each committee boat (we had 2 course areas) two "experts". But it became not much better.
We had to abandon the last race in the gold fleet under rule 32.1(e) in a hearing for more requests for redress after taking evidence from all available evidences
(including 2 judges as witnesses). Because of a major windshift bevor the start
competitors could not pass the line on starboard and on both ends of the line have been totally different wind strength (3 resp. 12-15 kn). The course to the top mark was no more a beat as shown in the course diagram in the SI. We found it as a mistake of the RC not to abandon and saw the abandonment as the fairest decision for all competitors, taking also in consideration that some requests for redressagainst our decision will come. Some requests have been lodged, but after
long discussion we didn?t grant redress.
Very bad organised event. The organisers didn?t take care of the judges. 2 judges arrived by plain in Milano and have been promised that they will be picked up. But it didn?t happen and they had to organise their travel to the venue by train,
bus and taxi and one had to stay one night in a hotel in Milano. The hotel for the judges was 12 km far and no transport was organised. We didn?t get any info from the organisers and have been isolated. No food was prepared for us. We had to
pay for our drinks. As we threatened to leave the event the organiser provided lunch bags and drinks for us, but still no transport. The class representative had to intervene at the organiser to calm the situation and to explain them the
importance of the International Jury for the whole event.
Ner of classes: 1
Entries: 155
Ner of Countries represented: 17
Ner of Races sailed: 34
Ner of requests for redress: 22
Ner of requests for redress for OCS: 7
Ner of requests for OCS granted: 0
Total number of hearings: 34
Total number of arbitrations: 0
Number of % penalties: 0
To be completed only if Appendix P was applied.
Number of First Penalties (Appendix P2.1): 40
Number of Second Penalties (Appendix P2.2): 4
Number of Third Penalties (Appendix P2.3): 0
P2.3 Subsequent Penalties: 0
Event:
2011 29er European Championship
Date Event Started
16 July 2011
Event Location:
Locarno-Brissago, Lake Maggiore, SUI
Group Event belongs:
B - Central Europe
Jury Chairman's name:
Manfred Piso
Jury chairman's email:
manfred.piso@gmx.at
Judge submitting report:
Manfred Piso
Email of judge submitting report:
manfred.piso@gmx.at
PRO at event :
Ulrich Fischer
PRO sailorID and status:
( IRO )
Email of PRO:
Fischer-piano@t-online.de
Was this an International Jury Panel ?
Yes
Please name each judge (including the chairman) and their country and IJ or NJ certification. one per line
Manfred Piso, IJ, AUT, chairman, AUTMP1
Stephen Procter, IJ, GBR, GBRSP19
Rudolf Durrer, IJ, SUI, SUIRD1
Soren Badstue, NJ, DEN, DENSB12
Patrick Diday, NJ, SUI SUIPD10
Manfred Piso, IJ, AUT, chairman, AUTMP1
Stephen Procter, IJ, GBR, GBRSP19
Rudolf Durrer, IJ, SUI, SUIRD1
Soren Badstue, NJ, DEN, DENSB12
Patrick Diday, NJ, SUI SUIPD10
