What Happened: BNC’s Finish and the Protest

In the 2025 Rolex Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race, the French-crewed yacht BNC – my::NET / LEON looked set to take the overall victory on handicap time. But after the race, that result was overturned when race officials imposed a 1-hour 5-minute penalty for a sail-handling rule breach in the last few nautical miles of the race. That penalty pushed BNC behind Min River in the corrected results, making Min River the overall winner. 

BNC and its co-skippers admitted they had broken the rule once they reviewed photos of their finish and realised what had happened. Officials also found that the sailing rule had indeed been breached and applied a penalty accordingly.

What Is Rule 55.3 “Sheeting Sails”?

Rule 55.3 is part of the Racing Rules of Sailing, and it’s meant to keep sail control fair and consistent. In simple terms:

You’re not allowed to pass a sail’s control line (the “sheet”) over or through something that pushes outward on it from a point that is outside the hull or deck — unless a few specific exceptions apply.

Let’s break that down:

• The “sheet” is the rope the crew use to control a sail’s angle to the wind.

• The rule bans using a device (like a pole or spar) to push or hold the sheet outside the boat in a way that changes the sailis position or performance.

• Some exceptions exist — for example, you can use a whisker pole with a headsail (like a jib) — but only when a spinnaker isn’t set.

In simple sailing terms: you can’t rig a sail so that a rope is pulled outward beyond the normal limits by sticking it around or through a pole or similar device — unless the rules explicitly allow it. Otherwise, you are effectively changing how the sail works, which can give an unfair benefit.

What BNC Did That Broke the Rule

In the final two nautical miles of the 628-mile race, BNC was sailing downwind under an asymmetric spinnaker — that big, balloon-like sail used when the wind is from behind.

To hold that sail open, the crew attached part of the sail’s control (the sheet) to a spar or pole, rigging it in a way that exerted outward pressure at a point that was outside the hull or deck when the boat was upright. In other words, the sail’s sheet was being held out by a device in a way that Rule 55.3 says you cannot do during the race.

The jury concluded that:

• This setup gave BNC a measurable performance gain — estimated at 3-5 minutes over the final miles.

• None of the exceptions in Rule 55.3 applied to the configuration they used.

The crew had this sail configuration in place when they crossed the line, and it was clearly visible in photographs — evidence crucial to the protest decision.

Why This Rule Matters (in simple words)

Rule 55.3 is about fair competition and predictable sail control:

• It prevents boats from using unusual hardware tricks to push sails further out than usually allowed.

• If one boat gets the wind better than others through rigging tricks, it can gain an unfair speed advantage.

• The rule ensures all sailors are racing under the same constraints, so the outcome reflects sailing skill and strategy, not secret sail hacks.

• The yacht’s handicap is based on applying specific parameters which BNC exceeded.

Was the breach of Rule 55.3 intentional?

According to statements from the BNC skippers, they didn’t set out to gain an advantage. They said the pole setup was intended to secure the sail and tidy the deck as they approached the finish, including for media coverage, not to go faster. However, the rule doesn’t require intent — only that the rule was breached.

Race officials agreed — the breach wasn’t deliberate — but the rule still had to be applied, with a time penalty proportional to the benefit the boat got.

More on the intention below…

The Result

That penalty was enough to drop BNC behind Min River on corrected (handicap) time, giving Min River the overall victory — and marking a historic first for that yacht and skipper.

Summary — Why BNC Broke Rule 55.3

• Rule 55.3 forbids controlling a sail sheet by pushing it outward over a device outside the deck or hull, unless specific exceptions apply.

• BNC rigged their spinnaker’s sheet using a pole/spar in a way that violated this rule in the final part of the race.

• Officials found this gave them a small performance benefit, and so imposed a time penalty.

• The penalty changed the race result, handing the overall win to Min River.

Why BNC Adjusted the Sail: Getting Ready for the Media Finish

As BNC approached the finish line of the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race, the crew knew they were about to enter a very different phase of the race — not competitive sailing anymore, but media presentation.

The final stretch of the race, especially for a potential overall winner, is heavily covered by:

• Television helicopters

• Media boats

• Photographers and drones

• Shore-based cameras

At this point, boats are expected to look clean, controlled, and safe as they cross the line.

The Reality of a Race Finish

In offshore racing, the final miles are often chaotic:

• Sails are stretched hard for maximum speed

• Sheets and lines are under heavy load

• Extra sails may still be rigged

• Decks can be cluttered

But once the result is essentially decided, crews often begin tidying the boat, even before crossing the line, to prepare for interviews, photos, and safety around support vessels.

This is where BNC’s situation comes in.

What BNC Was Trying to Do

According to the crew, their intention was not to gain speed, but to:

• Stabilise and tidy the sail setup

• Reduce flogging and movement of the sail

• Make the boat safer and more manageable for photographers and media boats

• Present the yacht cleanly for coverage after such a significant race

To do this, they adjusted how the spinnaker sheet was led. They used a pole or spar to hold the sail outward in a more controlled, stable shape — something that looks neat and makes handling easier when the pressure is off racing and on presentation.

From a sailor’s point of view, this can feel like common sense seamanship, especially when you believe the race is effectively over.

Where the Problem Came In

The issue wasn’t why they did it — it was how they did it.

By running the sail’s sheet over or against a pole outside the normal deck layout, they unintentionally created a setup that Rule 55.3 forbids explicitly. See the full Rule further down…

Even though the purpose was housekeeping and safety, the configuration:

• Still affected how the sail was shaped

• Still created outward pressure beyond what’s allowed

• Still had the potential to improve performance

Under the racing rules, intent does not matter. The rule focuses only on what physically happened.

From the rule’s perspective, it doesn’t matter whether the reason was:

• Speed

• Safety

• Neatness

• Media presentation

If the sheet is led illegally during racing, the rule is broken.

Why This Is a Common Grey Area

This incident struck a chord in the sailing world because many sailors would have done something similar without thinking twice.

There’s a natural mental shift near the finish:

• The hard racing feels “done”

• The boat feels like it’s transitioning from race mode to arrival mode

• The crew starts thinking about photos, spectators, and docking

But until the finish line is crossed, racing rules still entirely apply.

That’s the key lesson from this incident.

Why the Penalty Still Applied

Even though:

• The crew acted in good faith

• There was no attempt to cheat

• The gain was small

• The motive was presentation and safety

…the rulebook doesn’t allow discretion based solely on intent.

The jury concluded that:

• The sail configuration was not permitted

• It existed while the boat was still racing

• It provided at least some performance benefit

Therefore, a penalty had to be applied.

The Bigger Picture

This incident wasn’t about dishonesty or rule-bending — it was about timing and awareness.

It highlights an essential lesson for offshore sailors:

You’re racing until you’ve finished — even if the cameras are already on you.

BNC’s crew handled the aftermath professionally, accepted the ruling, and acknowledged the mistake. The episode has since become a teaching moment across the sailing community about how easily a well-intentioned action can cross a technical rule boundary.

Why was the protest by a competitor (Min River) disallowed?

In sailing terms, this comes down to who is allowed to protest under the Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS) and under what conditions.

Short answer

A competitor couldn’t protest because they didn’t meet the requirements of RRS 60.1, but the Protest Committee could under RRS 60.2 — and that’s why the protest still went ahead.

The key rules involved

RRS 60.1 – Who a boat may protest

A competitor may protest another boat only if:

• They were racing in the same race, and

• They were involved in or saw the incident, and

• They hailed “Protest” at the first reasonable opportunity (and displayed a red flag if required).

If any of those conditions aren’t met, the competitor cannot lodge a valid protest.

Common reasons a competitor can’t protest:

• They did not see the incident (hearsay)

• They were not involved

• They forgot or were unable to hail “Protest”

• They were not racing at the time

• The rule broken is one that competitors are not allowed to protest (e.g., eligibility, measurement, advertising)

RRS 60.2 – Who the protest committee may protest

The Protest Committee may protest a boat if:

• It observes a breach directly, or

• It receives reliable information of a breach (e.g., from officials, equipment inspection, race officers)

Importantly:

• The protest committee does NOT need a competitor to protest first.
• No hail or flag is required.

This is often used for:

• Rule 42 (propulsion)

• Class rule or equipment violations

• Eligibility issues

• Safety or conduct matters

• Incidents observed by umpires or officials

So what happened here?

The situation was as follows:

• A competitor saw something but wasn’t entitled to protest under RRS 60.1

• A competitor observed a breach of Rule 55.3 via drone footage.

• So not involved directly and no “Protest” hail.

• An official observed the violation and escalated this under Rule 60.2.

So the Protest Committee initiated the protest, which is entirely valid under the rules.