Keeping in mind, of course, that the skaters who start with higher base marks may still have more points even if they lose more points.
OK.Example: A skater's first two jumps are 4T and 3Lz. He rotates both jumps but falls on one of them.
Scenario A: He falls on the 4T. His score is 6.3 + 6.0 = 12.3
Scenario B: He falls on the 3Lz. His score is 10.3 + 2.9 = 13.2
His fall on the quad was more costly. The business about percent of base value is a red herring. In the CoP, points are points, whatever they are a percentage of.
Looking at it this way, this principle would be even more true if falling on a jump meant 0 points toward the total score, which I think is what you would prefer. Falling on a harder jump would lose you more points than falling on an easier jump.
But the planned total that those points are lost from is higher for a skater who attempts harder content to begin with. So if two skaters fall on different jumps and lose different amounts from their planned base mark, they still might come out the same.
With a fall = no cigar (no points) system, then these two skaters would earn the same total for their jumps, assuming they got the same GOEs and the same distribution bonuses:
4T+3T, 4T (fall), 3A+2T, 3A, 3Lz, 3F+2T+2Lo, 3Lo, 3S
4T, 3A+2T, 3LZ+3T, 3A, 3Lz (fall), 3F+2T+2Lo, 3Lo, 3S
The first example attempted a harder repeat jump. They both fell on the repeat jump and got no credit for it. So the jump content will not be the deciding factor here.
The same would be true if skater B popped the lutz before falling:
4T, 3A+2T, 3LZ+3T, 3A, 1Lz (fall), 3F+2T+2Lo, 3Lo, 3S
No credit for jumps with falls means that falling on a 1Lz is worth the same as falling on a 4T.
If skater B popped the lutz so badly he earned -3 GOEs but rotated the single and stood up, he'd get more points for jumps than the guy who rotated the quad but fell down.
And at my level of competition, if it were scored by IJS, if I did a 1Lz that deserved -3 GOE (highly likely if I tried one), I'd darn well want those 0.3 points.
Under 6.0, there was also a rule that jumps landed on two feet should not be scored. I think this referred to jumps landed with weight about equally distributed between both feet, not to an incidental touchdown or step out after landing on one foot. So if we want to change the IJS to give no points for jumps with falls, should there also be no points for jumps landed on two feet? And leave it up to the tech panel to decide which jumps qualify as "landed on two feet" and hence ineligible for any points at all, vs. jumps landed with errors in which the other foot touches the ice and hence eligible for base value according to amount of rotation, minus the applicable negative GOE?
True. If we were talking about the best skater in the world and the 200th-best skater, there would be no outrage here. The problem is in expecting that the 2nd-best skater in the world should always be within easy reach of the best (assuming we can define Chan and Takahashi as definitively the best and 2nd best -- which is always subject to change as they and other skaters continue improving or start to decline).But any way you slice it, if Chan's actual performances score 20 points above Takahashi's theoretically best program, then Chan can fall a lot of times and still be ahead on points.