Prang without penalty

John Greenland looks at the implications of SEB getting off the hook

The path to yesterday's 'Not Guilty' verdict for SEB has been a tortuous one and here in Miami many of those involved with the event have been impressed by skipper Gunnar Krantz' spirited defence in yesterday's protest hearing.

To remind ourselves of what happened - late in the afternoon of the start of leg five while the fleet were beating eastward along the Brazilian coast towards Cape Freo there was a port-starboard incident between illbruck and SEB. SEB was port tack boat and while attempting to dip illbruck's stern there was according to skipper Gunnar Krantz, a miscommunication between the anonymous helmsman and bowman over whether they were going to clear illbruck's transom.

The result was a collision at around 8 knots between the bottom of SEB's bow and illbruck's port aft quarter (she was heeled over to port at the time). The collision created a minor hole in illbruck, ripping out a stanchion and destroying the padeye for the masthead spinnaker sheet turning block. SEB were fortunate in that the collision destroyed much of their sacrificial bow and only made a small hole in the crash bulkhead (believed to have been made by illbruck's stanchion) behind the sacrificial bow. This hole the crew were able to plug and continue racing.

Following the collision SEB carried out a 720deg penalty turn in accordance with the rules.

During the leg north to Miami illbruck went from last place to first and would have won the leg if she hadn't been pipped at the post by Assa Abloy. SEB was also lying at the back the fleet after the collision until the team pulled a smart navigational move heading west to make the Doldrums crossing and pushing them into fourth position which they held until the finish, despite an eleventh hour challenge from News Corp.

On their arrival in Miami illbruck Challenge announced that they would not be protesting Team SEB over the collision.

However under rule 1.6.1 on the Volvo Ocean Race Sailing Instructions it states "a boat that may have broken a rule of Part 2 or when appropriate the steering and sailing rules of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, while racing may take a penalty at the time of the incident unless the Leg Sailing Instructions require the penalty to be taken at a specific time or position. Her penalty shall be a 720 Turns Penalty. However if she caused serious damage or gained a significant advantage in the Race by her breach she is not required to retire but will be protested by the Race Committee and may be penalised by the International Jury".

Clearly SEB did break the Collision Regulations, and gained no a significant advantage over illbruck. But did she cause illbruck 'serious damage'? If so under rule 1.7.2 'Jury Penalties' it states that the penalty for 'serious damage or serious injury is a five place penalty or disqualification'. The Race Committee met to discuss this and decided that serious damage had not been caused to illbruck but had been to SEB.

At the protest hearing held before an international jury led by Stephen Tupper (Can) yesterday the procedure was first to establish whether or not SEB had received 'serious damage' and if so, what her penalty would be.

Nick Nicholson, a Volvo 60 class measurer put the case for the Race Committee. He concluded "the damage to SEB is not trivial. Any breaching of the watertight integrity of the hull of an offshore racer, particularly near the waterline and near the likely point of impact in the event of collision with floating debris, would be considered serious from the perspective of seamanship by anyone who has spent significant time at sea. Likewise a boatbuilder would consider such damage serious because proper repair, including precautionary local disassembly to make sure that the limit of damage has been properly defined will take a considerable amount of time and will necessitate skilled workmanship.

"From these two perspectives, considering no mitigating circumstances, the damage to SEB is 'serious'."

Gunnar Krantz's spirited defence was based on the argument that in the context of the Volvo Ocean Race, sailed by professional crews on boats conceived with a high degree of built-in safety and carrying materials to make running repairs, the damage to SEB was not 'serious'. If it had been would SEB have been able to go from last to fourth place, he argued.

SEB's case was backed up by Patrick Shaughnessy, Senior Designer of Farr Yacht Design. "On visual inspection of SEB's damage resulting from the incident in question we find that the majority of the damage has been contained to the sacrificial bow area which although looking worse for it has obviously absorbed the brunt of the impact. The damage to the collision bulkhead itself appears to be largely superficial in nature and was minor enough that the crew was able to effect repairs while underway and continue to sail in a competitive manner. That the crew was able to effectively maintain the water tight integrity of the bow compartment through quick and relatively simple repair during the heat of the battle should speak by itself to the superficial nature of the collision bulkhead damage".

After deliberation the Jury found in SEB's favour and no penalty was made against them. In their conclusion the Jury summed up: "The damage had no significant impact on SEB's performance. SEB was able to continue racing safely. The cost of repairs is minimal in comparison to the total value of the boat.

"The boats are designed and constructed to withstand damage far beyond what could be anticipated in close-to-shore racing. The design and construction of the boats must be considered when determining whether damage is 'serious'.

"The damage to SEB is not considered serious".

See page two for our thoughts on the verdict

Below: this image clearly shows SEB 's sacrificial bow section and crash bulkhead and where illbruck 's stanchion tore through the foam.