The jury found for GER but it doesn't make sense to me.

I agree that boats have to give others room and opportunity but still see that GE was at fault given the significant amount of time A gave GE to see its actions.

I believe this crash would not have happened had the windward mark not been within a couple of boatlengths of Artemis. From what I could see, Artemis was ahead and to leeward. Artemis tacked and was clearly moving forward on starboard. A appeared to need to travel one or two boatlengths to round the windward mark. Rule 18 applies in this situation as I understand that the zone is now 3 boatlengths.

GE had two options: it could attempt a bear away as it did unsuccessfully and keep to the tightest racing or it could luff up, crash tack, and possibly hit the mark or have to jibe around to make the mark. GE was coming into the mark on port and likely within the three boat length circle.

Many racers, independent of being on X40s or Melges or what have you have hit boats just like this because they didn't want to tack inside and not make the windward mark. It was good racing but it didn't work out. At this level of professional sailing, it seems to me GE should have avoided even if it meant not sailing their preferred course. Of course, doing so could lead to additional complications as the courses are close to land and A would soon be bearing down on them after rounding the mark.

Maybe the jury is sending a message to keep things simple and safe on the water.