My two cents..(given as little as I know about the technical side of jumps)...
Are the changes an effort to push skaters to have better quality jumps (fully rotated - no prerotations, etc.)?
Are the changes an effort to have more meticulous scrutiny with the next Olympics coming up so the medal winners have been more "closely" (rotations, edges, GEO, etc.) judged on their abilities? (given judges have their own perceptions and interpretations as some have mentioned when scoring jumps) - in other words, an effort to be more fair in judging by being more meticulous (leaves less to personal interpretation)? Is this an effort to score skaters more fairly?
I do agree with at least one poster who said there needs to be more than one technical panel - I would suggest a panel of technicians the same as the judges. The judges would receive the average or median of each technical panel member's take on things. Or is that not possible?
How long would a competition be if every jump were slo-motion-reviewed by a technical specialist?
Maybe there could be one of these specialists reviewing in slow motion, during the program while another technical specialist or two, continue to do the usual?
I do not get the rationale of jumps having equal points if they are not equally difficult. Do the people making these decisions skate or have skated? What's the point of equalizing everything?
I don't get the double-points for quads vs triples. Granted quads are much harder, but twice the points?
That said, I am still going to watch figure skating as often as possible, and "ignorance is bliss" in my case! So it won't be nearly as aggravating to me, as for those of you who know so much more!
I want a big bunch of points for artistry. Judges have to feel something beyond checking off that the skater did this or that to choreography, to give the points!
