(This is an edited quote but IMHO contains the essence of the challenge.)
Where do we go from here?
One of the officials accepts my motion… “that the rigs for the FOOTY class be totally unrestricted in size, number or material of construction.”
Someone seconds that motion, the class officials put that to the members and it is either accepted or rejected by electronic voting.
Job done… next please. :devil3:
I broadly agree with Ian. But …
The International Committtee (including myself) will scream like stuck pigs at the effort required [sic], but so be it. It was our well-meaning incompetence and that of our little helpers that got the class into this fix in the first place.
The only good reason for not going ahead is that we must not incur any risk of repeating the last cock up.
Just to make it perfectly plain, once David Alresford had applied his Mighty Legal Mind to the voting system it became apparent that the only approach that would work and (approximately) fit the class charter was the one used: if there are a number of conflicting options on one rule, a change has to get more than 50% of the votes cast. This is a perfectly sensible way of going about things and I think we should retain it - once we have made the rule produce the boats we want to sail.
So - we have to make sure that the committee does not receive any counter-motions or variations or wouldn’t-it-be-nice-if-we-could-have-it-in-pistachio-and-passion-fruit-flavour’s. Obviously it would be improper (given that we do genuinely try to run things reasonably transparently) for the International Committee to give any formal preference to one proposal among a number submitted at the same time. [However, Google on Battle of Copenhagen].
If you want this folks, ask. It will save much malarky if formal motions are sent to me directly. My e-mail is translate@enterprise.net.
I leave it to you - and the other footpads, cut-throats and bogtrotters of the Footy class - to make sure that I do not receive any countervailing motions. The menu has to be very simple - beef or no beef.
Down to you.
:zbeer::zbeer::zbeer:
The 36R was, when introduced in 1930, intended as a simple, small class for juniors and clubs with small lakes. There was a parallel 30 inch class, but it didn’t take off. As is often the case, early boats to the Rule were modest and conventional. They didn’t even us all the 36 inches for waterline and rigs were quite small. By 1939 serious skippers were exploiting all that the box allowed, after a bit of argument over whether the hull could be tilted in the box.
I think that when the Rule was framed, the assumption had been that the box limitations would automatically control the sail area, but serious competition prompted the developemnt of big rigs that might only be used very occasionally and a whole series of smaller ones to suit changing conditions. The real skill in free sailing these beasts was to be able to control them while carrying a rig that was ‘too big’.
The rig limitation in the Footy Rule comes, I think, from Roger Stollery, who conceiving the class as a simple, cheap beginner’s and junior’s boat thought it would help keep things simple and cheap. The impact of high grade engineering thought and innovative rig design have in practice taken the centre of gravity of the class activity a long way from Roger’s concept and it looks as though the majority of most active skippers would prefer no rig restrictions. I am one of them. Let’s have a new ballot.
Russell
A thought on Angus’ scrupulous approach to the submission of motions. What’s to stop the Committee formulating its own motion in such a way as to ensure a clear answer one way or another when put to the membership?
They could even wait to see what motions emerged and then draft one of their own, in the good old smoke-filled room tradition of Trade Union Congresses in the UK. They call it ‘compositing’. I say nothing about the tradition of gross manipulation to achieve the result the senior Trade Union barons want.
Russell
Russell! Don’t you dare call me TUBby. I am truly obese!
:devil3::devil3::zbeer::zbeer:
I have today sent the following email to Angus…
Greetings Angus.
As per your instructions I forward the following motion for your consideration.
“That the rigs for the FOOTY class be unrestricted in size, number or material of construction.”
I await further instructions.
Best wishes, Ian Hull-Brown.
–
PO Box 6157
Marion Square
Wellington 6141
New Zealand
Tel 64-4-479-4111
And I have acknowledged receipt and will put the matter to the comnmittee.
A seconder might be nice - do I have on? Any thirders, fourthers, fifthers … The more the merrier. But remember: you must be supporting Ian’s motion. If you want the existing rig restrictios to go away, you must agree on what you want to replace them with. Pistachio-and-passion-fruit is NOT on the menu.
To remind you: my e-mail is translate@enterprise.net
:graduate::devil3::zbeer::zbeer:
Well i guess I will have to have the BEEF then
Rgds
AndyT
I was going to suggest radio-active metal for the spars & fittings so we can sail at night without any navigation lights.
Darn, I already seem to have an unlimited number of rigs in different sizes and materials…
I have received formal support for Ian Hull-Brown’s motion from Andrew Trewin.
Any more? My e-mail is translate@enterprise.net
I have received formal support for Ian Hull-Brown’s motion from Russell Potts.
Any more? Once again, my e-mail is translate@enterprise.net
My email to Angus in support of Ian’s proposal has been sent. Lets get this issue put to bed so we can get back to the fun.
I would like to include a word of encouragement to the committee &/or those who will be doing “the work”, If this thing is kept SIMPLE, as I have been expounding all along, then it need not be the train smash some might think.
To everyone else, good job men, a fine effort.
There is further formal support from Gary Sanderson and Trever Thomas.
I’m for it,
but FWIW I think it’ll also intimidate the (beginner) when (or if) he reads things like this or sees it happen at a egatta. It’s one thing to have two boats, but to have a number of rigs can be quite intimidating. You’ll have a rig for light winds, really light winds, ‘normal’ winds, high winds, and gale winds. Plus, one could have rig(s) of different designs, like bermuda, stayless, McRig, Hoyt, etc. in different sizes and why not even different sail materials for different sailing conditions, etc., etc…
I feel intimidated myself somewhat, but I’m taking my time to build the one(s) I want instead of what I might think I’d ‘need.’ I would probably have a different BOAT for different conditions.
IMO…
Hello Angus,
I have asked this question before, but can’t recall receiving an answer. The last I heard, the most recent rules changes were voted on, ballots tallied, and results posted. However, there was comment on the lists that New Zealand had already voted to refuse their ratification of that ballot, and a similar ratification is currently pending for the USA, balloting will officially close later this month. Are there any other countries where similar ratification of the recent vote is still pending (or even needed?).
If New Zealand has indeed refused to ratify the previous rules change ballot, can someone from that country propose even further rules changes for a future ballot before the current disputes are resolved?
Since it seems that for every rule or restriction that exists in the International Footy Class rule-set, there seems to be someone somewhere who finds that rule objectionable, I would like to formally propose that ANY & ALL restrictions in the Footy Class rules be eliminated from now on and forever, including measurements, hulls, radios, rigs, materials, etc. This should satisfy everyone, and save a lot of time and eMails back & forth.
Regards,
Bill Nielsen
Oakland Park, FL USA
(P.S.- I really would like a serious answer to #1 & #2)
Hi Bill,
I entirely appreciate the serious of your intent.
I started writing paragraph after paragraph of cautiously worded English, but this is much better.
So far as I know (Brett, who is the NZ representative has not visited this website since 27 Dec 2008), NZ has accepted the new rule - since it was what they wanted - perhaps Ian H-B could fill us in.
As an owner, Ian HB is fully entitled to make a submision to the class International Committee. The class internationally is not an association of class associations.
The position on ratification in the USA is anomalous - and hopefully will be resolved by the curent AMYA ballot. No other country has such a requirement.
I hope this answers your questions,
:graduate::zbeer::zbeer:
Greetings Bill,
I am not sure where you read that New Zealand has voted to refuse ratification of the ballot, because that is not true.
There has been no such vote proposed or taken.
Therefore your question #2 is answered as well.
I hope that is a serious enough answer to your questions.
If the class governing committee feels that I am not qualified, competent, suitable or sane enough to move the proposed motion then I am sure they will simply take the next name on the list of supporters, until they find someone acceptable to you and themselves.
It would seem (from your what appears to be satirical proposal) that you also agree that the rigs should be un -restricted.
If your proposal is indeed serious (and if it is then I may have offended you ) then you should perhaps state it under another heading for others to debate.
Best wishes from middle earth.
Angus & Ian H-B,
Thanks for the clarification and answers to my questions. After reading the answers, I was fairly certain that I hadn’t dreamed up the NZ part during some “Footy nightmare” back in December, so I did a bit of digging about, and found where I had read it (see post 3524 on the Footy USA Yahoo group site). So, you see, I really wasn’t hallucinating. Thanks for setting me straight.
I was only half kidding about the elimination of ALL Footy restrictions, since it does seem to me that every rule or restriction in the Footy rulebook has someone somewhere who doesn’t like it, and feels it should be eliminated. The rules and restrictions are there to guide the class development and try to prevent it from becoming a free-for-all bearing no resemblance to the original concept. There are not a lot of complex rules for Footy sailors to have to deal with in the first place, they’re all pretty simple & straightforward. If we keep replacing them one by one with the wording “unrestricted” simply because someone somewhere objects to that particular rule, then it won’t be long before we have a class that is without any rules whatsoever.
Regards,
Bill Nielsen
Oakland Park (Ft. Lauderdale), FL USA
IMO, Footies were originally intended to be a class for (beginners?) with simplified (rules) and the two-rig rule keeps your parts-count down to two rigs, which is simple enough. you just gotta take your chances with your pick and ask lots of questions to see which rig(s) to build or bring.
fwiw