From SA.
Artemis might have been ahead, but GE/Rothschild was in the tactically controlling position. Essentially being pinned by GE/Rothschild, Artemis really only had three options (without breaking the rules):

Pinch/luff hard and try to force GE/Rothschild to start ducking them (GE/Rothschild cannot go inside within the zone) [In hindsight this was probably the preferred option];

Wait for GE/Rothschild to tack before tacking themselves and follow them around the mark (from above the layline); or

Bear away before tacking and again follow GE/Rothschild's around the mark (from behind).

Instead they went for 4. (tack anyway) and, as a result, fouled GE/Rothschild.

The would of... could of... should of (tack or execute the duck flawlessly) of GE ARE MISSING THE POINT....

Art was leading but not winning... If you think you have wiggle room in this situation ....you will naturally push the line. They did and lost...

Tackers Don't have wiggle room.... Tackers have to KNOW they are not going to foul before they tack.
This is a simple rule. ... The language describing it can't be simpler either.

Debating the... would of, could of and should have of GE tend to take the spot light off of Art.

Not flagging racers who do this, (often unknowingly based on the reaction to this thread) and get away with it muddies the bright line and will lead to bad collisions.