But one thing has to be noted - nowhere in the IJS criteria for components does it explicitly mention that a fall equates lower component marks. That's often the go-to line for those trying to dispute results that they don't like. More subtly, the only component that comes into play is in the Performance/Execution mark, where "clarity of movement," which takes about the "precise execution of any movement," can and should be interpreted as an area for consideration when it comes to falls.
Why? The idea was to clearly separate the technical side on the technical mark - so falls, poor landings, well-executed jumps, strong spins, etc., would be taken care of in the technical elements score. The program components score is more of a big-picture mark that takes the overall performance into account.
A fall that doesn't disrupt the program and the skater's performance of it? That doesn't - and shouldn't - do much to the components mark.
That was precisely the conversation last year at Worlds when it was Chan vs. Takahashi. A fall that completely disrupts the program and takes the skater completely out of the performance of the program? That is what doesn't get addressed nearly enough.