I refrained from commenting last year because it was all a bit too close to a Match Racing call against me from a poster here who holds the ‘tacking is instaneous’ view.

For me the absence of a definition is irrelevant - it is a question of construction.  If tacking happens instantaneously when you pass head to wind then there is no need for the last clause of Rule 13 or of 20.2 c after ‘you tack’.

And Rule 13 would be headed ‘while bearing away after a tack’!

Which will convince me better that you were anxious.

"I hailed Starboard. They ignored me. I hailed louder again shouting you need to tack too. They ignored me. I altered course"

"I wasn't sure if they saw me and I was anxious so I altered course"

Can you expand on this?

John, I am glad that the WASZP rules are working in practice.  I think that the wingfoils will go a different direction, with little or no limitations, at least in part because they are always in the standing position.  I think that should be up to the fleet decide and adopt in their class rules so we shall see as the class matures.

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.