One of the great things about this sport is we can change so many of the rules, subject to RRS 86, to experiment and try out potential improvements.

John Allen, my knee jerk reaction is negative, but on reflection I don't have a solid argument against trying it if you have a willing OA & RC & PC. (Though personally I'd be more inclined to experiment in a beercan series --- it'll be much faster to see the consequences 12 races into it if races happen every week or two.)

I suggest two other rule changes to go with it. 

1) Many hearings here end with validity because someone did not say the magic word fast enough or fly a red flag fast enough. Please consider extending "as soon as reasonably possible" in 60.2(a) to some longer period. I know we risk the boats getting out of earshot, but perhaps we change the requirement to hail to be the protestor must hail, or sound a whistle, or air horn, and point at a red flag and the offending boat. Or get on VHF and hail that way.

2) Please consider extending the time to take a penalty. I would prefer not to go as long as match racing, but if we want boats to do the right thing let's give them more time to do it. (Or decide they'd done the right thing and there was no foul). Something like "before the next mark" would be problematic at an upwind mark with an offset, so perhaps "before sailing downwind, for incidents on upwind legs outside the zone, or before sailing upwind for incidents on downwind legs outside the zone. Penalties for incidents in the zone of an upwind mark shall be taken on or before the next downwind leg; penalties for incidents in the zone of an downwind mark shall be taken on or before the next downwind leg."

Since as judges we do like to find loopholes, let me say I'm thinking of buoy races here. Long distance ocean races (next stop, Hobart!) would prompt a different approach on timing.

Regarding #1
There are several professional sailors earning 7 figure contracts now.  As the lawsuit between Ineos and Athena illustrates, Ben Ainslie earned $9 million in each of the last 2 Americas Cups. Tom Slingsby, Peter Burling, Jimmy Spithill , Dylan Fletcher etc are all well paid professional athletes
2. A Sail GP teams sells for $60 million. It is only after the cost cap that an AC campaign comes down to $100 million.
3. The contact between France and NZ was fairly brutal, and resulted in two hospitalizations. One for 6 months.
4. Most of the professional sport has on the water umpiring, and a good amount of amateur racing as well.

The good news is that it does not seem to have significantly altered the ethos of our sport. We are taught early in our sailing lives that winning doesnt count if you lose the respect of your fellow competitors.  All of these professional sailors came up the ranks through the amateur sport and learned the importance of good sportsmanship.  Very few sports have the equivalent of our Part 1 fundamental rules and  "A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play."

I think the hundreds of judges who volunteer their time and reinforce the principles of good sportsmanship have contributed to this unique vibe in the sport of sailing. After a life time in competing in this sport on all continents, I cannot express my gratitude to the judging community enough.......(even the French judge who dinged me for 42 at the Bermuda Worlds :)  )

So Stefan, two quick points. 

1. Standing in the water holding the boat or anchoring is always legal. If you can use it to your advantage , that is fair. Any other boat can do the same.  Provided you comply with 42 and dont push or pull off, this is legal and part of sailing.
2. In real life, in good breeze, in the absence of a foul current, it does not pay to be at a standstill at the start. So this is all a bit academic.
Nonetheless even if there was a tactical advantage that I do not fully understand, it is legal to anchor.

Doug ... I can't imagine why WS would have gotten their undies in a bundle if USS did an Rx.   It's clearly allowed without WS permission in 86.1(a) .. so I don't think reluctance due to what WS would have thought holds much water. 

Sounds like David implemented Rule 0.0  "Keep 'em coming back for more"