I haven't done the math, but I assume that under this year's rules Skater A's base mark is more than 12 points higher after sequence multipliers, and therefore Skater A would win, even with -3 GOE on three jumps and three fall deductions, assuming the GOEs on the other jump passes are the same.
And I would agree that that does not seem appropriate, if everything else is the same between the two skaters. The best way, IMO, to prevent that result would be to increase the negative GOE penalties for failed triple axels and quads.
HOWEVER, if Skater A was better in some other significant ways in addition to showing the ability to rotate more revolutions in the air at a time without landing cleanly -- e.g., if Skater A deserved high positive GOEs on the five successful jump passes while Skater B barely squeaked out most of the jumps, or if the spins steps, and/or program components were not equal -- then I do not have a theoretical problem with Skater A coming out ahead with those respective jump schedules/results.
Obviously, those who place high value on not falling for the sake of not falling would disagree.
And I would agree that that does not seem appropriate, if everything else is the same between the two skaters. The best way, IMO, to prevent that result would be to increase the negative GOE penalties for failed triple axels and quads.
HOWEVER, if Skater A was better in some other significant ways in addition to showing the ability to rotate more revolutions in the air at a time without landing cleanly -- e.g., if Skater A deserved high positive GOEs on the five successful jump passes while Skater B barely squeaked out most of the jumps, or if the spins steps, and/or program components were not equal -- then I do not have a theoretical problem with Skater A coming out ahead with those respective jump schedules/results.
Obviously, those who place high value on not falling for the sake of not falling would disagree.