Question 3: I assume A did not obtain its overlap on B from clear astern as that would be difficult at their point 1 positions. But even if it did it does not really matter.
Rule 11 requires B to keep clear of A therefore B infringes A when she pushes her down from her existing course. B’s defence would be that C failed to give sufficient room for B to meet her rule 11 obligations to A.
(Room and therefore Mark Room include space to comply with obligations of part 2 rules which include R11)
There is an argument that at position 2, B could have and therefore should have gybed which means A would have to as well. That might exonerate C for its later infringement

I'm with Phillip, in the definition its a measure, and that measure should be consistent. A less than competent crew is not entitled to more room than an expert one, and would be breaking a rule if they require it (lets leave room made freely available out of it for now).  Similarlty an expert crew is allowed the same room as a competent one, even though they may not need it,

John, I agree with you about reasonable apprehension and skill level, but I think its a red herring in the context of Room and Case 103.

A holywood is really a match racing term for a great show, but may not be genuine.

@Lars - having done a number of WASZP events, I found the RRS 42 rules easy to see and enforce.

The world sailing judges manual changes on improper act or ommission in each version, each seeming giving judges more room for interpretation. Just track the change next time, it may be what gordon and i may expect.
The old bad race management hidden behind the word may not shall,, may not be tolerated.
A time of change perhaps! I believe for the better if we are to improve standards and improve the sport.