I've lookat this a lot and my view is that they did not have cat sailors on the jury and so did not ask some crucial questions....
1, Sp; you chose to Duck, whay was that
-> Expected answer / reading between the lines - it was the tactical option
2, Why was the jib eased early, before the rudders had gripped and the bear off started
-> Opps we fecked up; cats don't work like that
3, Why did you not dump the traveller quickly; you know these bats do not bear off well
-> Opps we fecked up
4, Why did you not dump more mainsail when attempting to bear off
-> Opps we fecked up
5, Why did you not tack as these boats are difficult to bear off
-> as stated the tactical opt..... Opps we fecked up....
The esecond they chose to bear off they were in trouble; maybe because they are not as "auto experienced" as some cat sailors KNOWING that you dump the main and start to bear off and once the rudders have gripped you dump the jib; maybe they were too dialied into the tactical options and made a bad call.
IF the rudders had not stalled they would have avoided them; if they had tacked they would have avoided them. IF they has sailed the boat properly they would ahve avoided them.
I've pondered that myself. I do believe that it was possible to execute that duck manuever and avoid Artemis if it was carried out more precisely...but, then I fall back to why do all these "ifs" come into play in the first place? Artemis made an "iffy" move and it appeared to me that the other boat made an honest effort to avoid them...and this is really what it boils down to. Not only is enough evidence not usually available but Juries will often lack the experience to say whether or not the steps to avoid the indecent were precise - now you get into grading the ability of someone to sail their boat. The decision has to stay simple; i.e....did they make an honest effort to avoid the collision?
They sure did have that protest flag ready though...wink wink.
