Regards,
Posted on 06/19/2023 10:07:37 AM PDT by ConservativeInPA
A North Carolina fishing tournament ended in controversy over the weekend as a group that caught a 619-pound blue marlin was disqualified after a review.
The boat named Sensation reeled in the fish as part of the 65th Big Rock Blue Marlin Tournament in Morehead City. The tournament organizers on Saturday showed a photo of the crew on its Facebook page with the gigantic catch but warned the group could be in violation of one of the rules.
——- break ———
it was determined that SENSATIONS 619.4lb Blue Marlin is disqualified due to mutilation caused by a shark or other marine animal. It was deemed that the fish was mutilated before it was landed or boated and there for it was disqualified," the statement read.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Bad luck pulling up a record size fish that disqaulifies because of previous shark attacks. And apparently this is long-time rules that have been invoked previously. Rules are the rules. Best to get the pictures, have a beer with some grilled marlin.
Yes but the boy will still take care of him.
Regards,
Doesn’t look all that bad, but rules are rules. I’ve caught fish offshore and all that I reeled in was a head. By the way, this team lost $3.5 m in prize money and probably a lot in side bets.
What would the purpose be of this mutilation rule? An open wound might open the possibility of some sort of fraud but disqualification over a healed wound I don’t understand.
What is the purpose of the rule?
disqualified due to mutilation caused by a shark or other marine animal.
“I reeled in was a head”
It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity.
It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition,
and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge.
This is the dimension of Barracuda. It is an area which we call the......
........... Cuda Zone.
Seems unfair - they don’t disqualify trannies who have been mutilated.
Is there a reason for that rule? I do not know, haven’t read anyone discussing that beyond that the rule has been in place forever and applied, so nothing new here. If I had to guess, I’d suspect that they figure a mutilated and injured fish is easier to catch, not a fair catch compared to a healthy fish.
“I’ve caught fish offshore and all that I reeled in was a head.”
Same here, but I was fishing Surf at the OBX. Did not see the school of Blues when reeling in a Croaker. It was bizarre, I could feel the Blues taking chunks out of the fish while I was reelin in.
That pic does not show the bites. There are those that show 2 near the tail area.
This is somewhat reminiscent of Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea."
Was Hillary’s fish in second place?
OK, not related to this case but this was one of the funniest moments in sports fishing history.
.
Yup.
I've reeled in stuff that looked a lot worse than that.
Just a guess, but it might be that a wounded fish would be easier to reel in as where a healthy fish may have fought and escaped.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.